Background

    In February 2012, Sata Limited Liability Company (hereinafter referred to as “client”) found that Xiamen Juruxin Electromechanical Equipment Co Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “defendant”) registered the domain name www.dgsata.com (hereinafter referred to as “disputed domain name”) to conduct sales of SATA spray gun. The customer sought legal advice from Kangxin to stop the infringement.

Process

    After receiving the client's request for legal advice, the attorney conducted a detailed analysis and advised the client to defend its rights by way of a domain name dispute. On March 20^th, 2012, the client signed the necessary documents for Kangxin to begin the domain name dispute case.

    After receiving the customer's instructions, Kangxin drafted the complaint and collected extensive evidence in support of the domain name dispute resolution. On April 20^th, 2012, Kangxin formally filed a domain name dispute complaint with the Beijing Office of the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Center (ADNDRC). ADNDRC then forwarded us a notice of the commencement of the process for domain name“dgsata.com” on May 11.

Results

    On June 19^th, 2012, the Beijing office of ADNDRC sent us a final ruling notice, transferring the domain name to the client.

Comments

    The key point of this case is to clarify the disputed points of the case and collect corresponding evidence to support the claim. As the defendant’s website sold genuine SATA spray guns and not counterfeits, the case does not constitute an infringement behavior. We advised the client to file for a domain name dispute and collected persuasive evidence after receiving customer instructions. In particular, we collected relevant evidence of customer trademarks to prove that the defendant is engaged in spray gun sales industry. As our client’st rademark is very well-known in the industry, the defendant cannot have claimed to be unaware of the existence of the SATA trademark. Since the use of the name SATA is the main component of the controversial domain name, we presented the behavior as clearly malicious, and exhaustively demonstrated the malicious violations of the legitimate rights and interests of our client. Our evidence was accepted and the domain name dispute was successfully completed. We were able to not only stop the malicious behavior of the defendant, but also obtained the disputed domain name for our client. The client commended Kangxin for providing services that were beyond their expectations.