Generic Top Level Domain Name (gTLD) Decisions

1. The Parties

The Complainants are as follows:

- Iwasaki Corporation, 9-5, Yamashita-cho, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima 892-0816, Japan

- Iwasaki Hotels Corporation, 3755, Juni-cho, Ibusuki-shi, Kagoshima 891-0403,Japan.

The Respondent is as follows:

- Mitaden Co., Ltd., 24-15, Hinode-cho, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima 890-0086, Japan.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed Domain names are as follows:

The registrar is Network Solutions, Inc., 505 Huntmar Park Drive, Horndon VA 20170-5142, United States of America ("the Registrar").

3. Procedural History

This is an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy") adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999, in accordance with the Rules for the Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, ("the Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for the Policy ("the Supplemental Rules") of the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center").

The Complaint was received by the Center by email on April 15, 2002 and in hard copy on April 17, 2002. The Center acknowledged receipt of Complaint on April 18, 2002. On the same day, the Center requested the Complainants for the ACE code to convert the non-English domain names in order for the concerned Registrar to verify these domain names. On April 19, 2002, the Complainants notified the Center of the ACE code of the domain names. The Center sought registration details from the Registrar, on April 19, 2002. The Center received the confirmation from the Registrar that, among others, the Respondent is the current registrant on April 25, 2002. After the communications between the Center and the Complainants with regard to the transmission of a copy of Complaint with a cover sheet to the Respondent and the Registrar, the Complainants sent them to the Respondent and the Registrar by-email in accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 3(b)(xii) and the Supplemental Rules, Paragraph 4(b).

On April 30, 2002, the Center satisfied itself that the Complainants had complied with all formal requirements of the Rules, including payment of the prescribed fee, and notified the Respondent by post/courier, facsimile and email of the Complaint and of the commencement of this administrative proceeding. The formal date of the commencement of the proceeding was accordingly April 30, 2002. The last day specified in the notice for a response was May 20, 2002.

The communications by any means failed to reach the Respondent. On May 21, 2002, no response having been filed, the Center notified the Respondent of its default.

On June 3, 2002, the Center notified the parties of the appointment of Masato Dogauchi as the Administrative Panel, after receiving the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence from Masato Dogauchi. The Center notified that the Panel was required, absent exceptional circumstances, to forward its decision to the Center by June 17, 2002.

The language of the proceeding is English.

The Panel is satisfied that the Complaint was filed in accordance with the requirements of the Rules and Supplemental Rules; payment was properly made; the Panel agrees with the Center of assessment concerning the Complaints of compliance with the formal requirements of the Rules; the Complaint was properly notified to the Respondent in accordance with Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules; no Response was filed within the time specified by the Rules and the single-member Administrative Panel was properly constituted.

4. Factual Background

Since the Respondent failed to furnish its response, the Panel proceeds to consider the following facts submitted by the Complainants:

Both of the Complainants are companies incorporated under Japanese law with their principal place of business in Kagoshima, Japan. One of them, Iwasaki Corporation, is doing its business in passenger traffic and transportation industry, and its ranking in that industry was the first place in Kagoshima prefecture in 2001. The other one, Iwasaki Hotels Corporation, is doing its business in hotel industry, and its ranking in that industry was also the first place in Kagoshima prefecture in 2001. They are members of the same business group, Iwasaki Group. This is the reason why they jointly filed the Complaint against the Respondent.

5. Parties of Contentions

A. Complainants

The Complainants assert in essence as follows:

(1) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and the company name, respectively, in which the Complainants have rights under Japanese law;

(2) The Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the dispute domain names;

(3) The disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.

With regard to the items (2) and (3) above, the Complainants assert the following facts showing the Respondent ofs bad faith in its registration without any legitimate interests:

- The Respondent has never used or made any demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain names;

The Complainants accordingly request a decision that the disputed domain names be transferred to the Complainants.

B. Respondent

There was no response filed.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, a Panel shall decide a Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Since the Respondent has not made any submission, the following decision is rendered on a basis of the submission from the Complainants.

In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the Complaint to be granted, the Complainants must prove each of the following:

- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

- The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

These requirements will be verified respectively.

Identical and Confusing Similarity

Legitimate Interests

According to the complaint, the Complainants could not find where and how the Respondent is using or is preparing to use the disputed domain names. As the Respondent has not argued any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, it is inevitable to conclude that the second requirement is also satisfied.

Bad Faith

Accordingly, all three cumulative requirements as provided for in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are determined to be satisfied.

7. Decision