Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions |
Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sony
corporation v. Domain rajadomain@yahoo.com +1.415.0
Claim Number: FA0210000128701
PARTIES
Complainant
is Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/k/a Sony Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN (“Complainant”) represented by Robert B.G. Horowitz, of Cooper & Dunham LLP. Respondent is Domain rajadomain@yahoo.com +1.415.0, USA (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sonyamerica.com>,
registered with OnlineNIC.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.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on October 24, 2002; the Forum received
a hard copy of the
Complaint on October 28, 2002.
On
October 27, 2002, OnlineNIC.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the
domain name <sonyamerica.com>
is registered with OnlineNIC.com and that Respondent is the current registrant
of the name. OnlineNIC.com has verified
that Respondent is bound by the OnlineNIC.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
October 28, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”),
setting a deadline
of November 18, 2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the
Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent
via e-mail to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and
to postmaster@sonyamerica.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 11, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed
John J. Upchurch 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 Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and
principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any
Response
from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
The
<sonyamerica.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SONY mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent
registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a world leader in the
field of consumer electronic products.
Complainant is also involved in a wide range of other businesses from
entertainment to finance and life insurance services. Complainant conducts all of its business under the SONY
trademark. Complainant has registered
the SONY mark in 193 countries including Japan (Reg. No. 500,037) and the
United States (Reg. No. 1,258,436).
Complainant spends millions of dollars annually to advertise and promote
its SONY mark throughout the world.
Complainant also does business on the Internet at a number of different
websites that incorporate the SONY mark, such as <sony.com>
and
<sonystyle.com>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on May 18, 2002. Respondent is
using the disputed domain name <sonyamerica.com> in order to
divert Internet users to <skyhit.com>.
The <skyhit.com> website offers search engine services as well as
links to adult content websites. Both
the adult content website and the search engine are owned and operated by
Respondent.
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 SONY mark through registration with the United States Patent and
Trademark Office
as well as registration in various countries throughout the
world.
Respondent’s <sonyamerica.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous mark because it
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark and merely
adds the geographic
identifier “America,” and the top-level domain “.com.” The addition of the geographic term does not
give Respondent’s domain name any distinct characteristics capable of
overcoming a claim
of confusing similarity because it merely associates
Complainant’s mark with America.
Complainant sells numerous products in North and South America,
therefore Internet users are likely to be confused as to the source
of the
disputed domain name. See Net2phone Inc, v. Netcall SAGL,
D2000-0666 (WIPO Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that Respondent’s registration of the
domain name <net2phone-europe.com> is confusingly
similar to
Complainant’s mark…"the combination of
a geographic term with the mark does not prevent a domain name from being found
confusingly similar"); see also VeriSign, Inc. v. Tandon, D2000-1216 (WIPO Nov. 16, 2000) (finding
confusing similarity between Complainant’s VERISIGN mark and the
<verisignindia.com>
and <verisignindia.net> domain names where
Respondent added the word “India” to Complainant’s mark). Moreover, the addition of the top-level
domain “.com” does not create any distinct characteristics because it is a
required feature
of every domain name.
Therefore, its addition does not overcome a claim of confusing
similarity. 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); see also Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v.
Smith, [2002] USCA9 115; 279
F.3d 1135, 1146 (9th Cir. Feb. 11, 2002) (“Internet users searching for a
company’s [w]ebsite . . . assume, as a rule of thumb, that the domain name
of a
particular company will be the company name [or trademark] followed by
‘.com.’”).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has failed to come forward
with a Response. Therefore, the Panel
is permitted to make reasonable inferences in favor of Complainant and accept
Complainant’s allegations as true. See Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB,
D2000-1398 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a
presumption that Complainant’s allegations are true unless
clearly contradicted
by the evidence); see also Talk
City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence
of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the
Complaint”).
Furthermore, based on Respondent’s
failure to Respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the
disputed domain name. See Do
The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000)
(finding that once Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in
respect of the domain, the burden shifts to Respondent
to provide credible evidence that substantiates its claim of rights and
legitimate
interests in the domain name); see also Geocities v. Geociites.com, D2000-0326 (WIPO June 19, 2000)
(finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain
name because Respondent
never submitted a Response nor provided the Panel with
evidence to suggest otherwise).
Respondent is using the <sonyamerica.com>
domain name in order to divert Internet users to <skyhit.com>, a website
that offers search engine services and links to
adult orientated websites. Respondent is therefore using Complainant’s
mark in order to attract Internet users to its own website. 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 Big Dog Holdings, Inc. v. Day, FA 93554
(Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2000) (finding no legitimate use when Respondent was
diverting consumers to its own website by
using Complainant’s trademarks); see
also Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Karpachev, 188 F.Supp.2d 110, 114 (D. Mass. 2002) (finding
that, because Respondent's sole purpose in selecting the domain names was to
cause confusion with Complainant's
website and marks, it's use of the names was
not in connection with the offering of goods or services or any other fair
use).
Respondent does not use SONY
AMERICA to identify its services at the <skyhit.com> website. Moreover, there is no evidence on record
that Respondent is commonly known as SONY AMERICA or <sonyamerica.com>. Based on the fame of Complainant’s SONY
mark, it would be very difficult for Respondent to establish that it is
commonly known by
any domain name or moniker that incorporates Complainant’s
mark. Further, Respondent has not come
forward with any evidence attempting to establish this fact and the Panel finds
that Respondent has
no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain
name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer,
D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights or legitimate interests
where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a right or legitimate
interest” in a domain name containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE
trademark); see also Nokia Corp.
v. Nokiagirls.com, D2000-0102 (WIPO Apr. 18,
2000) (finding that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the
<nokiagirls.com> domain
name because there was no element on website that
would justify use of the word NOKIA within the domain name).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)
has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent is using the disputed domain
name in order to attract Internet users interested in Complainant to its own
website at <skyhit.com>.
Respondent is the owner of both <skyhit.com> and the adult
websites this website links to. It can
therefore be inferred that Respondent is diverting Internet users to these
websites for its own personal gain. The
use of a confusingly similar domain name in order create Internet user
confusion for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith
registration and use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Kmart v. Kahn, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if
Respondent profits from its diversionary use of Complainant's mark when
the
domain name resolves to commercial websites and Respondent fails to contest the
Complaint, it may be concluded that Respondent
is using the domain name in bad
faith pursuant to Policy 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where Respondent directed Internet users
seeking Complainant’s site to its own
website for commercial gain).
Policy paragraph 4(b) lists four factors
that give rise to evidence of bad faith registration and use. These four factors are not meant to be
exhaustive, and other circumstances can indicate evidence of bad faith registration
and use. See CBS Broad., Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone,
D2000-0397 (WIPO June 19, 2000) (“[T]he Policy expressly recognizes that other
circumstances can be evidence that a domain name
was registered and is being
used in bad faith”); see also 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”).
Based on the fame of Complainant’s SONY
mark it can be inferred that Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s
rights when it
registered the disputed domain name. Registration of a domain
name, despite actual notice of Complainant’s rights is evidence of
bad faith
registration pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
See Digi Int’l v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24,
2002) (holding that “there is a legal presumption of bad faith, when Respondent
reasonably should
have been aware of Complainant’s trademarks, actually or
constructively”); see also Exxon
Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000) (finding that
Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s EXXON mark
given
the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent registered the
domain name in bad faith).
Furthermore, Respondent has linked the
disputed domain name to pornographic websites.
The use of a domain name for this purpose associates Complainant’s
famous mark with pornography and therefore tarnishes Complainant’s
goodwill. This type of use gives rise
to a presumption of bad faith 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); see also
Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names, D2000-0370
(WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding that absent contrary evidence, linking the domain
names in question to graphic, adult-oriented
websites is evidence of 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 <sonyamerica.com>
be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
John J. Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: December 16, 2002
WorldLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.worldlii.org/int/other/GENDND/2002/1677.html