Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

The Complainant is Sony Corporation , Tokyo, Japan ("Complainant") represented by Robert B.G. Horowitz, Cooper & Hunham LLP. The Respondent is RK Enterprises, Visakhapatnam, INDIA ("Respondent").

The domain name at issue is "walkman.com" registered with Network Solutions, Inc.

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as a panelist in this proceeding.

Hon. James A. Carmody, as Panelist.

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the "Forum") electronically on November 21, 2000; The Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on November 27, 2000.

On November 30, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain name "walkman.com" is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Network Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions, Inc. 5.0 registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANNís Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On November 30, 2000, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 20, 2000 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondentís registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@walkman.com by e-mail.

Having received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On December 22, 2000, pursuant to Complainantís request to have the dispute decided by a One Member panel, the Forum appointed the Hon. James A. Carmody as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its Decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forumís Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent.

The Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts Respondentís domain name, walkman.com, is identical to Complainantís WALKMAN trademark. Also, the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to Complainantís mark because the music related services that have been available via the web site would cause Internet users to assume that he or she has accessed a site related to Complainantís WALKMAN products.

Complainant also contends Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in question. Likewise, Respondent has acted in bad faith by registering the domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its web site for commercial gain via a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís mark.

B. Respondent

Respondent has failed to submit a response in this matter.

Complainant, Sony Corporation, is a world leader in consumer electronics. Complainant coined the term WALKMAN and has been using the trademark in connection with audiocassette tape players and recorders and other related goods since July of 1979. Since 1979, Complainant has sold over 235 million WALKMAN personal stereos worldwide. Complainantís WALKMAN trademark was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in June of 1989. Presently, the Complainantís mark is well known among the public and has become famous.

Respondent, RK Enterprises, registered the domain name at issue in July of 1999, twenty years after Complainant first used the famous mark. In the past, Respondent has offered music-related services via the domain name at issue. Currently, the Respondentís site contains advertisements and links to assist in building a web site.

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

(1) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant has rights in the mark WALKMAN. Respondentís domain name, walkman.com, is identical to the Complainantís registered mark. Policy  4.a.(i). See State Fair of Texas v. State Fair Guides, FA 95066 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 25, 2000) (finding that the Complainant has rights in the registered marks, STATE FAIR OF TEXAS and TEXAS STATE FAIR and therefore, Respondentís domain names STATEFAIROFTEXAS.COM" and "TEXASSTATEFAIR.COM" are identical to the Complainantís mark, except for the addition of the domain name level designation "com"); see also Microsoft Corp. v. Amit Mehrotra, D2000-0053 (WIPO Apr. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name <microsoft.org> is identical to the Complainantís mark).

Also, the domain name in question is found to be confusingly similar because a reasonable Internet user would assume the domain name is somehow related to the Complainantís mark. See Treeforms, Inc. v. Cayne Industrial Sales Corp., FA 95856 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2000) (finding that confusion would result when Internet users, intending to access Complainantís web site, think that an affiliation of some sort exists between the Complainant and the Respondent, when in fact, no such relationship would exist).

Respondent has asserted no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the domain name at issue. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain names, nor is Respondent using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Policy  4.c.(i)-(ii).

Consequently, Respondentís failure to show evidence sufficient to refute Complainantís assertions, entitles the Panel to conclude that Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in regard to the domain name at issue. See The Boeing Co. v. Nicola Bressi, D2000-1164 (WIPO Oct. 23, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests where the Respondent has advanced no basis on which the Panel could conclude that it has a right or legitimate interest in the domain names and no use of the domain names has been proved).

The Panel finds the Respondent has acted in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to its web site, primarily for the purpose of commercial gain, via a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís famous mark. Policy  4.b.(iv). See Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding that given the similarity of the Complainantís marks with the domain name, consumers will presume the domain name is affiliated with the Complainant Öthe Respondent is attracting Internet users to a website, for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantís mark as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the Respondentís website).

Moreover, circumstances indicate Respondent was aware of the Complainantís famous mark prior to registration, which also allows the Panel to conclude Respondent acted in bad faith. See Reuters Ltd. v. Teletrust IPR Ltd, D2000-0471 (WIPO Sept. 8, 2000) (finding that the Complainant demonstrated bad faith where the Respondent was aware of the Complainantís famous mark when registering the domain name as well as aware of the deception and confusion that would inevitably follow if he used the domain names).

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief shall be granted.

Accordingly, it is ordered that the domain name walkman.com be transferred from Respondent to the Complainant.