6.1 Language of the Proceeding
According to information received by the Center from the concerned Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Spanish.
The Complainant filed the Complaint in English, despite indicating that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is German.
As mentioned above, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Spanish, regarding the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
Given the provided submissions and the circumstances of this case, the Center decided to: (1) accept the Complaint in English; (2) accept a Response in either English or Spanish; and (3) appoint a Panel familiar with both languages.
Furthermore, the Center has indicated that the Panel may choose to write a decision in either language, or request translation of either party’s submissions.
Pursuant to Rules, paragraph 11, in absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise.
Paragraph 10(b) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall ensure that the parties are treated with equality and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.
The Complainant has submitted a request that English be the language of the proceedings, to which the Respondent has not replied.
To require the Complainant to translate the Complaint and all supporting documents into Spanish would cause an unnecessary burden to the Complainant and unnecessarily delay the proceeding.
In view of the fact that the Respondent was notified in both English https://riotfest.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/i-dont-like-mondays-698×392.jpg” alt=””> and Spanish by the Center of the nature and deadlines pertaining to the proceeding as well as the issue of the language of the proceeding, the Panel does not consider it prejudicial to the Respondent if English were adopted as the language of the proceeding. The proceeding would be unduly delayed if the Complaint and annexes thereto had to be translated into Spanish. In keeping with the Policy aim of facilitating a relatively time and cost-efficient procedure for the resolution of domain name disputes, the Panel decides that the appropriate language for the proceeding is English.
6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the tradee to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the e.
For the purposes of assessing identity or confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) as it is viewed as a standard registration requirement (section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)). Thus, for the test for confusing similarity of this first prong the Panel shall disregard the “.email” included in the disputed domain name.