command of the language, time and costs1. English is a fair choice for the language of the proceeding under the circumstances of this case. First, it is more likely than not that the Respondent understands English because the December 3 Respondent’s email and the December 22 Respondent’s emails were written in English and because the December 29 Respondent’s email indicates that he understood text of the documents in English that the Complainant and the Center sent him. Second, the Respondent has been involved in two Uniform Rapid Suspension System cases where English was language of the administrative proceedings: Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Alexey Gurov, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400004 and Alibaba Group Holding Limited v. Alexey Gurov, ADNDRC Case No. HKS-1400012 (the "URS Cases"). Third, the evidence on record shows that “www.open-taobao.com” and “www.taoimagine.com” websites display some content in the English language. Fourth, the Complainant will be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate the Complaint and the documents associated with this administrative proceeding into Russian. The Panel, therefore, accepts the Complaint in the English language and determines that English should be language of this proceeding. 5.3. Standard of review It is a consensus view among UDRP panelists that “[a] respondent's default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant… [T]he complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP.”2 A panel may draw inferences from a respondent's default.3 The ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy provides, at Paragraph 4(a), that each of three findings must be made in order for a Complainant to prevail: i. ii. iii. Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A) Identical / Confusingly Similar To satisfy the first UDRP element, a domain name must be “identical or confusingly similar” to a trademark, in which a complainant has rights. The Complainant demonstrated its rights in the TAO and the TAOBAO marks by submission of copies of multiple trademark registrations for the TAOBAO trademarks. 1 Paragraph 4.3 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). 2 Paragraph 4.6., WIPO Overview 2.0. 3 See, Id. Page 7