page 1WIPO Arbitration and Mediation CenterADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISIONKabushiki Kaisha Raibudoa v. Kubota, ACase No. D2001-08171. The PartiesThe Complainant is Kabushiki Kaisha Raibudoa, (English name: livedoor, Inc.),MAR’S Minami Aoyama Building 6F, 9-19, Minami Aoyama 5-chome, Minato-ku,Tokyo 107-0062, JAPAN. The Respondent is Kubota, A, Higashi-cho, OSAKA, Osaka, JAPAN. 2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed Domain Name is (bq—gdu2jvwjui) and the Registraris Network Solution Inc. of the United States of America.3. Procedural HistoryThis is an administrative proceeding pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name DisputeResolution Policy (“the Policy”) adopted by the Internet Corporation for AssignedNames and Numbers (“ICANN”) on August 26, 1999, in accordance with the Rules forthe Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, (“the Rules”) and theSupplemental Rules for the Policy (“the Supplemental Rules”) of the WIPO Arbitrationand Mediation Center (“the Center”). The Complaint was received by the Center by email on June 21, 2001 and in hard copyon June 25, 2001. The Center acknowledged receipt on June 22, 2001 and soughtregistration details from the Registrar on June 26, 2001. On July 19, 2001 the Centerreceived the confirmation from the Registrar that, among others, the Respondent is thecurrent registrant. On July 20, 2001, the Center satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with allformal requirements of the Rules, including payment of the prescribed fee, and notifiedthe Respondent by post/courier, facsimile and email of the Complaint and of thecommencement of this administrative proceeding. The formal date of thepage 2commencement of the proceeding was accordingly July 20, 2001. The last dayspecified in the notice for a response was August 9, 2001. The communications by any means failed to reach the Respondent. OnAugust 10, 2001, no response having been filed, the Center notified the Respondent ofits default.On August 27, 2001, the Center notified the parties of the appointment ofMasato Dogauchi as the Administrative Panel, after receiving the Statement ofAcceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence from Masato Dogauchi.The Center notified that the Panel was required, absent exceptional circumstances, toforward its decision to the Center by September 10, 2001.The language of the proceeding was English.The Panel is satisfied that the Complaint was filed in accordance with the requirementsof the Rules and Supplemental Rules; payment was properly made; the Panel agreeswith the Center’s assessment concerning the Complaint’s compliance with the formalrequirements of the Rules; the Complaint was properly notified to the Respondent inaccordance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules; no Response was filed within the timespecified by the Rules and the single-member Administrative Panel was properlyconstituted.4. Factual BackgroundSince the Respondent failed to furnish its response, the Panel proceeds to consider thefollowing facts submitted by the Complainant:The Complainant is a company incorporated under Japanese law and is wholly ownedby “livedoor Group Inc.” in the United States. It has its business base in Japan for theInternet related business using Japanese language. “Kabushiki KaishaRaibudoa(株式会社ライブドア)” is registered as the official company name of theComplainant with a legal affairs bureau in Tokyo, Japan. The term “ライブドア”,which is pronounced “Raibudoa” in Japanese, is correspondent with “livedoor” inEnglish. The Complainant applied for trademark registration of “ライブドア” toJapanese Patent Office on November 1, 1999. Such application was approved onFebruary 9, 2001 and has since been the owner of the registered trademark of“ライブドア” under Japanese law, specifying services including, in particular, agencyfor advertising in communications by computer terminals and communications bycomputer terminals. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent.According to the information registered at the WHOIS database of the Registrar(Document F-9 submitted by the Complainant), the record on this domain name wascreated on November 10, 2000. There is no evidence that shows the activity of theRespondent using this domain name. page 35. Parties’ ContentionsA. ComplainantThe Complainant asserts in essence as follows:(1) The disputed domain name is identical or confusing similarto the registered trademark of the Complainant under Japanese law; (2) The brand “ライブドア” has reached its current level of recognition after multimillion dollar investment in far reaching PR/Marketing campaign and universallyassociated with the Complainant’s service;(3) The Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests inrespect of the dispute domain name;(4) The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith in order to prevent theowner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name. With regard to the item (4) above, the Complainant introduces the following evidencesshowing the Respondent’s bad faith in its registration:- The Respondent’s registered address, “Higashi-cho, OSAKA, Osaka,JAPAN”, is fictitious and incomplete;- The Respondent’s phone and facsimile numbers, “+81-00-000-0000” and“123-123-1234” respectively, are fictitious and invalid; - The Respondent’s name, “Kubota, A”, is also incomplete.- The Respondent has acquired 19 multilingual domain names on the samedate and through the same registrar using the same fictitious and incompleteaddresses, one of which is the disputed domain name;- The Complainant cannot find where and how the Respondent is using thedisputed domain name.The Complainant accordingly requests a decision that the disputed domain name betransferred to the Complainant.B. RespondentThere was no response filed. 6. Discussion and FindingsIn accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for the complaint to be granted, theComplainant must prove each of the following:- The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to atrademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and page 4- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of thedomain name; and- The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in badfaith.These requirements will be verified respectively.Identical and Confusing SimilarityIt is clear from the record that the disputed domain name includesidentical term “ライブドア” with the essential part of the Complainant’s companyname and with its registered trademark under Japanese law. Absent the rebuttal fromthe Respondent, there is no reason to deny the finding that the first requirement issatisfied. Legitimate InterestsAccording to the complaint, the Complainant could not find where and how theRespondent is using the disputed domain name. As the Respondent has not argued anyrights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, it is inevitable toconclude that the second requirement is also satisfied. Bad FaithAs stated above, the Complainant pointed out several facts in order to prove that thedisputed domain name was registered in bad faith. With regard to the information ofthe identification and location of the Respondent registered in the record of theRegistrar, the Center also could not reach the Respondent using such information.Furthermore, in consideration of the fact that such information is identical in 19multilingual domain names, one of which was the disputed one in this case, registeredby the Respondent on the same date and through the same registrar using the sameidentification, it is obvious that the Respondent intentionally registered such fictitious orincomplete data in order to evade pursuit from anyone who would claim its rights orinterests in its registered domain names. As the Respondent has not argued to thecontrary, the third requirement can be admitted to be satisfied.Accordingly, all three cumulative requirements as provided for in Paragraph 4(a) of thePolicy are determined to be satisfied.7. DecisionIn accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel decidesthat the disputed domain name (bq—gdu2jvwjui) registered by theRespondent (Kubota, A.) to be transferred to the Complaint (Kabushiki KaishaRaibudoa). Masato DogauchiSole PanelistDated: September 2, 2001
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy