DECISION

Webplus, Inc. and Talentsoft, Inc. v. Seungchul Woo

Claim Number: FA0203000105771

PARTIES

The Complainant is Victor Tong Webplus, Inc. and Talentsoft, Inc., Eden Prairie, MN (“Complainant”).  The Respondent is Seungchul Woo, Kumpo-city Kyunggi-do, KOREA (“Respondent”).

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME 

The domain name at issue is <webplus.com>, registered with Hangang Systems, Inc.

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.

Moon Sung Lee as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (“the Forum”) electronically on March 8, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on March 8, 2002.

On March 8, 2002, Hangang Systems, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the domain nam <webplus.com> is registered with Hangang Systems, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Hangang Systems, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hangang Systems, Inc. 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 March 13, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 1, 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@webplus.com by e-mail.

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on April 1, 2002.

On April 12, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Moon Sung Lee as Panelist.

The language of administrative proceedings of this case is Korean, which, pursuant to Chapter 11 of the ICANN Rules, is the language of the registration agreement, and therefore this decision was prepared in Korean.

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

(1) The Complainant asserts that the domain name of this case is the same as the registered trademark of the Applicant or that it is similar enough to cause confusion.

(2) Also, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent should be regarded as not having any rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name of this case for the following reasons. 

[i.]        Before being notified of the dispute regarding the domain name of this case, the Respondent was not using the domain name of this case or a name corresponding to such in order to provide goods or services, nor has he proven that he was making preparations for such use.

            [ii.]       The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name of this case. 

            [iii.]      The Respondent is not using the domain name of this case for a legitimate

non-commercial purpose nor is he using it fairly.

(3) The Complainant asserts for the following reasons that the domain name of this case was registered and is being used illegitimately.

[i.]        The Respondent has attempted to sell the domain name of this case to the Complainant. 

[ii.]       The Respondent registered or acquired the domain name of this case in order to prevent the Complainant from being able to use the trademark of the Complainant under its corresponding domain name and the Respondent has committed this kind of action many times.

[iii]       The Respondent linked the domain name of this case to pornographic sites and has infringed the trademark of the Complainant to gain commercial benefit by linking Internet users who have confused the trademark of the Complainant with the domain name of this dispute to pornographic sites.

B. Respondent

(1) The Respondent asserts that the domain name of this case is different than the registered trademark of the Complainant.

(2) Also, the Respondent asserts that he has rights to and legitimate interest in the domain name of this case for the following reasons.

[i.]       The Respondent acquired the domain name of this case in August 2001 from a third party for five million Korean won.

            [ii.]       The Respondent began using the domain name of this case before receiving notification of this dispute and is using the domain name of this case to provide helpful link and search services to Internet users at no cost. Furthermore, he is currently developing a two-way community in order to provide general web assistance to Internet users.

(3)        The Respondent asserts that he has not proposed selling the domain name of this case to the Complainant but instead, that has has merely refused requests for sale from the Complainant, and that the domain name of this case was not acquired for illegitimate purposes. 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is known as Webplus, Inc. and Talentsoft, Inc. located in Minnesota, USA and registered the trademark "WEB+" with the US Patent & Trademark Office on November 18, 1997 as trademark number 2,113,584. The Complainant has used the WEB+ trademark since April 1, 1996 to provide various products and services connected to web applications.

The Respondent obtained the domain name of this dispute on August 3, 2001. Before receiving notification of the dispute regarding the domain name of this case, the Respondent linked the domain name of this case to <xxy.net>, a pornographic site.  

DISCUSSION

Article 4, Paragraph (a) of the ICANN Rules requires that the following three conditions must be proven in order to cancel or issue a transfer order for a domain name:

(1) The trademark or service mark in which the Complainant holds rights and the domain name of the registering party are identical or similar enough to be confusing;

(2) The registering party does not have rights to register or a legitimate interest in registering the domain name; and,

(3) The registrant registered and is using the domain name for improper purposes.

 

Identicalness and/or Confusing Similarity

The domain name of this case <webplus.com> and the trademark registered by the Complainant (WEB+) are not identical but, “+” is expressed as “plus” in English and so both have the same meaning and pronunciation. Therefore, both “webplus” and “WEB+” can be viewed as being similar enough to be confused. 

Therefore, the domain name of this case is judged to satisfy the condition of being identical and/or confusingly similar.

Rights and/or Legitimate Interest

The Respondent is not known widely to ordinary people by the domain name of this case and has not proven that he was using the domain name of this case to provide goods and services before receiving notification of this dispute regarding the domain name. Also, as the Respondent is not using the domain name of this case for a legitimate non-commercial purpose or using it fairly, the Respondent is evaluated as not having any rights to or legitimate interest in the domain name of this case. 

 

Use for Illegitimate Purposes

Article 4, Paragraph (b) of the ICANN Rules provides four examples of cases where the purpose of registration or use of a domain name can be judged as illegitimate.

Article 4, Paragraph (b), Item (i) of the ICANN Rules is regarding the acquisition of a domain name for the purpose of selling it. Article 4, Paragraph (b), Item (ii) of the ICANN Rules is regarding the acquisition of a domain name in order to prevent the Applicant from using it. Article 4, Paragraph (b), Item (iii) of the ICANN Rules is

regarding interference in the business of a competitor. Article 4, Paragraph (b), Item (iv) of the ICANN Rules is regarding the use of a domain name with the purpose of confusing visitors into thinking that the online location of the Respondent is a location related to the Complainant.

According to evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is true that the Complainant first proposed to the Respondent the sale of the domain name of this case but it is also true that the Respondent agreed to this sale proposal. Also, after the Respondent asked the Complainant how much the Complainant was willing to pay for the domain name of this case, Respondent then rejected the sale immediately when the Complainant proposed a price of US$350. Based on this, it can be assumed that the Respondent had intention to sell the domain name of this case for a high price. Also, as the Respondent linked the domain name of this case to pornographic sites, the Respondent induced the linkage of Internet users who confused the Complainant’s trademark and the domain name of this case to such pornographic sites. This can be judged as being as a case where the Respondent used the domain name to gain commercial benefit by causing confusion between the web site of the Respondent and the trademark of the Complainant. 

By putting these points together, this Panel determines that the Respondent is using the domain name of this case for illegitimate purposes. .

DECISION

Therefore, based on all of the above reasons, the decision is made to transfer the domain name <webplus.com from the Respondent to the Complainant. 

Moon-Sung Lee
April 26, 2002

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page