Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Fujitsu Limited v. d,y,an
Claim Number: FA0208000123924
PARTIES
Complainant
is Fujitsu Limited, Kanagawa, JAPAN
(“Complainant”) represented by James D.
Halsey and David E. Weslow, of Staas & Halsey LLP. Respondent is d,y,an, Gyoung Buk, KOREA (“Respondent”) represented by Sung Sang-Hee, of Hanalaw Law Office.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <pocketloox.com>,
registered with Iholdings.com.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in
serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically
on August 29, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the Complaint on September
4, 2002.
On
September 3, 2002, Iholdings.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <pocketloox.com>
is registered with Iholdings.com and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. Iholdings.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the Iholdings.com registration agreement and has
thereby agreed to resolve
domain-name disputes brought by third parties in
accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the
“Policy”).
On
September 10, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of September 30, 2002 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 Respondent’s registration as technical,
administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@pocketloox.com by
e-mail.
Subsequent
to the foregoing deadline, and without being properly served upon Complainant,
a Response to the Complaint was received
by the Forum on October 11, 2002.
On
October 18, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided
by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce
E. Meyerson as Panelist.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant,
Fujitsu
Limited, contends that the <pocketloox.com> domain name is
identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's POCKET LOOX mark. Complainant further contends that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name
and that Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Although
the Response to the Complaint submitted by d,y,an, was not timely received by
the Forum, in the exercise of the Panel’s discretion,
the Panel has chosen to
consider the Response. Respondent
contends that he registered the disputed domain name for personal reasons and
that Complainant has been unable to show
proof of trademark registration of <pocketloox.com>. Respondent also denies that he sought to
sell the domain name to Complainant.
FINDINGS
Complainant holds two trademark
registrations in Japan for its LOOX mark (Reg. Nos. 4,504,151 and 4,565,571)
registered on September
7, 2001 and May 10, 2002 respectively. Complainant uses this mark in relation to
notebook computers.
In January 2002, Complainant released information regarding its
new Personal Digital Assitant (“PDA”) known as the POCKET LOOX. From as early as January 30, 2002
Complainant’s POCKET LOOX product and mark has been extensively discussed in the
global media as
the first PDA powered by the Intel® PXA250 applications
processor and featuring the Intel® Xscale microarchitecture. The integrated technology on the POCKET LOOX
enables wireless connection to the desktop PC and web browsing, and the GPRS
module adds
mobile phone functionality.
Complainant has also launched a massive worldwide marketing program for
promoting its PDA under the POCKET LOOX mark.
The worldwide sale of the POCKET LOOX PDA began on July 16, 2002.
Complainant has applied for trademarks
for POCKET LOOX in 28 countries, including Japan where it applied for a
trademark on January
28, 2002.
Complainant also applied for a trademark in the United States on May 17,
2002.
The disputed domain name <pocketloox.com>
was originally registered by a “Micheal Ahn” on February 7, 2002. At that time the domain name resolved to a
pornographic website. The domain name
registration was transferred to Respondent on June 26, 2002. Respondent is using the disputed domain name
to display information about Complainant’s POCKET LOOX that is fictitious and
disparaging
of Complainant’s product. A
message at Respondent’s website reads “Notice- We realize the error of our
Company’s item Which is ‘Pocketloox.’ We are very sorry. We will do our best that this kind or case
never happen[s] again.” The graphic
display on the website attempts to simulate the website of an international
computer company. Complainant’s
investigation has revealed that Respondent is the same entity that registered
the disputed domain name on February 7,
2002.
DISCUSSION
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 and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate
pursuant to paragraph 14(b) 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 Respondent
is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which
Complainant has
rights; and
(2)
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established that it has
rights in the LOOX mark through registration and use in Japan. Complainant has also established that it has
rights in the POCKET LOOX mark through evidence of extensive use throughout the
world
as the name of its new PDA product.
The ICANN dispute resolution policy is “broad in scope” in that “the
reference to a trademark or service mark ‘in which the complainant
has rights’
means that ownership of a registered mark is not required–unregistered or
common law trademark or service mark rights
will suffice” to support a domain
name Complaint under the Policy. McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair
Competition, § 25:74.2 (2000).
Respondent’s <pocketloox.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s POCKET LOOX mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely adds
the generic top-level
domain “.com.” The addition of a
top-level domain is irrelevant when conducting a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis
because top-level domains are a required
element of a domain name and have no
distinctive qualities of their own. As
a result, the addition of a top-level domain name does not create a distinct
mark capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) identical
analysis. See Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000)
(finding <pomellato.com> identical to complainant’s mark because the
generic top-level domain
(gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not
relevant). .
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent’s brief Response fails to set
forth any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. When Complainant asserts a prima facie
case against Respondent, the burden of proof shifts to Respondent to show that
it has rights or legitimate interests pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,
D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).
Furthermore, because the Response failed
to demonstrate any right or legitimate interest in the domain name, it is
appropriate for
the Panel to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences
in the Complaint as true. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure
to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
complainant
to be deemed true).
It is fair to infer from the record that
Respondent is currently using the disputed domain name in order to masquerade
as Complainant,
and offer misleading information about Complainant’s new
product identified by the POCKET LOOX mark.
Respondent is not using the domain name to offer legitimate protests, or
complaints about Complainant’s product, it is merely offering
false
information. This type of use is not
considered to be in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i),
or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 12, 2002) (finding
respondent’s use of the confusingly similar domain name <hpmilenium.com>
to sell counterfeit versions of complainant’s HP products was not a bona fide
offering of goods or services).
Based on Respondent’s own communications
with the Panel, and Complainant’s submissions, it can be established that
Respondent is commonly
known as “Mr. An,” but not as POCKET LOOX or <pocketloox.com>. Therefore, there is no evidence in the
record that establishes that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed
domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) (finding that respondent does not have rights in a domain name when
respondent is not known
by the mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The UDRP Policy expressly recognizes that
the paragraph 4(b) factors are not exclusive.
Therefore, other circumstances could give rise to bad faith beyond the
conduct listed in the paragraph 4(b) factors.
See Educ. Testing Serv. v.
TOEFL, D2000-0044 (WIPO Mar. 16, 2000) (finding that the Policy
“[I]ndicates that its listing of bad faith factors is without limitation”);
see
also Home Interiors & Gifts, Inc.
v. Home Interiors, D2000-0010 (WIPO Mar. 7, 2000) (“[J]ust because
respondent’s conduct does not fall within the ‘particular’ circumstances set
out
in ¶4(b), does not mean that the domain names at issue were not registered
in and are not being used in bad faith”).
The disputed domain name <pocketloox.com>
is identical to Complainant’s POCKETLOOX mark and Respondent has used the
domain name in connection with two distinctly tarnishing
activities. From February to June of 2002, Respondent
used the disputed domain name in connection with a pornographic website. And since July of 2002, Respondent has used
the domain name in order to confuse Internet users and disparage Complainant’s
product
as it masquerades as Complainant.
The use of a domain name that is identical to Complainant’s mark in
order to display pornography and other tarnishing material is
considered to be
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Mar. 5, 2001) (use of another's well-known mark to provide a link to a
pornographic site is evidence of
bad faith registration and use).
Based on the fact that Complainant
released information about its POCKET LOOX product in January 2002, and
Respondent registered the
<pocketloox.com> domain name within two
weeks of this global news release it can be inferred that Respondent registered
the domain name in anticipation
of selling the domain name registration to
Complainant, or to benefit from the initial interest confusion that would
result when
curious consumers attempted to locate Complainant’s new product at
the <pocketloox.com> domain name.
Registration of a domain name, despite notice of Complainant’s rights is
evidence of bad faith registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Albrecht v. Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000)
(“The Respondent intentionally registered a domain name which uses the
Complainant’s name. There is no
reasonable possibility that the name karlalbrecht.com was selected at
random. There may be circumstances
where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such
evidence, the Panel can only conclude
that the registration was done in bad faith”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
shall be hereby
granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <pocketloox.com>
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: October 25, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1480.html