WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Clifford Chance LLP v. Zhao Xing Ming Case No. DCC2018-0019 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Clifford Chance LLP of London, United Kingdom, internally-represented.

The Respondent is Zhao Xing Ming of Huai An, Jiang Su, China, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 30, 2018. On December 3, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 5, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 10, 2018.

On December 5, 2018, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding on December 10, 2018. The Respondent requested that Chinese be the language of the proceeding on December 13, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 2, 2019. On December 14, 2018 and December 17, 2018, the Respondent sent two emails in Chinese reiterating that it is not able to understand English.

On December 17, 2018, the Respondent offered to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant for free. The Center notified the Parties that if they wish to explore settlement options, the Complainant should submit a request for suspension by December 24, 2018. On December 17, 2018, the Complainant submitted a request for suspension. Therefore, the Center notified the Parties that the proceeding was suspended until January 16, 2019. On January 18, 2019, the Complainant requested to reinstitute the proceeding. The Center notified the Parties that the proceeding was reinstituted and the due date for Response was February 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any substantive Response. Accordingly, on February 4, 2019, the Center notified the Parties that it would proceed with panel appointment.

The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant, its predecessors and associated entities have been known as Clifford Chance since 1987 when the law firms Clifford-Turner and Coward Chance merged.

The Complainant has registered and uses the trade mark CLIFFORD CHANCE in respect of, inter alia, legal and advisory services in many jurisdictions around the world including in the United Kingdom (“UK”), the European Union (“EU”), and the United States of America (“U.S.)”. The Complainant has an International trade mark registration for the mark CLIFFORD CHANCE, which includes a designation for China (No. 611881A, registered on November 12, 1993), as well as UK trade mark registrations (No. UK00001578701, registered on August 18, 1995, and No. UK00001578702, registered on August 29, 1995), EU trade mark registration (No. 000077420, registered on December 9, 1998) and U.S. trade mark registration (No. 2775904, registered on October 21, 2003).

The Complainant’s main website is located at “”. The domain name was registered on September 9, 1994. The Complainant has, additionally, registered more than 200 domain names comprising the word “clifford” in combination with the word “chance”. The Complainant states that it receives more than 425,000 page views per month on average, the majority of which are accessed by key words using combinations of “clifford” and “chance”.

The disputed domain name was registered on July 12, 2017. The Complainant tendered evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s CLIFFORD CHANCE mark which is well known in respect of legal services around the world. To make matters worse, the legal press and others often shorten “Clifford Chance” to “cc” so that a portion of the relevant public may perceive the disputed domain name to convey “cliffordchance.cliffordchance”.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant came to know of the disputed domain name as a result of the Respondent contacting the Complainant by email on September 27, 2018, informing the Complainant that it would put the disputed domain name into the market and the Complainant had the opportunity to purchase it. The Complainant put the Respondent on notice on October 31, 2018 of the Complainant’s rights in the CLIFFORD CHANCE trade mark. On November 1, 2018, the Respondent replied by email, acknowledging that it had infringed the Complainant’s trade mark rights but maintained that the disputed domain name was available for purchase, in the amount of EUR 2,590.

There is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name or a nam