WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Ju-Sik-Hoe-Sa Yuhan Yang Haeng (Yuhan Corporation) v. Andrew Bloxham
Case No. D2002-1061
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Ju-Sik-Hoe-Sa Yuhan Yang Haeng (Yuhan Corporation) with its place of business at 49-6, Daebang-dong, Dongjak-ku, Seoul, Republic of Korea ("Korea"). The Complainant is represented in this proceeding by C. Leon Kim, First Law Offices of Korea.
The Respondent is Andrew Bloxham, an individual whose address is King Groft, Copp Lane Great Eccleton Lancahire PR3 OZN, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is (hereinafter "domain name").
The registrar for the domain name is A Inc. (hereinafter "Registrar"), which has its office at 1800 Sutter St. Suite 100, Concord CA 94520, U.S.A.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed by the Complainant before the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("Center") on November 11, 2002, by way of e-mail and on November 25, 2002, in hard copy, the Center acknowledged receipt of the Complaint on November 20, 2002.
On November 20, 2002, a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted to the Registrar requesting it to: (1) confirm that a copy of the Complaint was sent to the Registrar by the Complainant, as required by WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Supplemental Rules"), Paragraph 4(b); (2) confirm that the domain name at issue is registered with the Registrar; (3) confirm that the person identified as the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name; (4) provide the full contact details (i.e., postal address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es)) available in the Registrar�s Whois database for the registrant of the disputed domain name, the technical contact, the administrative contact and the billing contact; (5) confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("the Policy") applies to the domain name; (6) indicate the current status of the domain name; (7) indicate the specific language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for the disputed domain name; (8) indicate whether the domain name registration has submitted in its Registration Agreement to the jurisdiction at the location of the principal office of the Registrar for court jurisdiction of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name. The Registrar confirmed on the same day by reply e-mail that the domain name is registered with it, that the Respondent is the current registrant of the domain name and that the registration agreement is in English. The Registrar also forwarded the requested Whois details and confirmed the applicability of the Policy to the domain name at issue.
On November 27, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was transmitted to the Respondent, setting a deadline for the Respondent�s filing of a Response to the Complaint for December 17, 2002.
No Response was filed within the time specified by the Rules. On December 18, 2002, the Center served the Respondent with a formal notice of its default.
On January 16, 2003, by virtue of the Complainant having sought the appointment of a one-member panel, the Center notified the parties of the appointment of the undersigned who has submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, to serve as the sole Panelist. The Center transmitted the case file to the panel and notified the parties of the projected decision date of January 30, 2003.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in Korea operating under the company name of "Yuhan Yang Haeng" which is "유한양행" in Korean. Since its establishment in 1926, the Complainant has maintained extensive businesses in the pharmaceutical field and its trade name and its Trademark as defined hereinbelow has been widely recognized in Korea. "Grand Prize � Korean Corporate Culture Awards" in 1995, "Grand Prize � Knowledge Management Awards" in 2000, and "Grand Prize � Consumer Culture Awards" in 2001 are only a few of the many examples showing the remarkable business achievements of the Complainant during its 80 year history in Korean society.
The Complainant is the registrant of the trademark "유한양행" ("the Trademark") which is equivalent to "Yuhan Yang Haeng" in English in its pronunciation.
The domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 10, 2000, and has never been in actual use after the registration.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant�s Contentions (Summarized)
The Complainant contends that:
- the domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the Trademark;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name;
- the Respondent�s domain name was registered and used in bad faith, at least to prevent the Complainant from registering its own trademark, service mark or trade name as a domain name.
B. Respondent�s Contentions
The Respondent failed to provide any Response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
Language of the Proceeding
According to Paragraph 11 of the Rules for Domain Name Resolution Policy ("Rules"), the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, which is the English language in this case.
Identicalness or confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Trademark
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(a) that the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical with or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(b) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue; and
(c) that the domain name at issue has been registered and used in bad faith.
In this case, without the ".com" part which is just a common feature of ".com" domain names, the domain name is left only with the name "유한양행" in Korean. Therefore, it is obvious that the domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to the Trademark on which the Complainant has registered its trademark right under the laws of Korea.
Respondent�s right or legitimate interests in the Domain Name
According to the assertions and documents submitted by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the domain name.
Bad faith
As discussed hereinabove, the Complainant itself, its trade name and the Trademark are widely recognized in Korea not only to the particular industry concerned but also to the consumers in general.
The Trademark was derived from the trade name of the Complainant which has its origin in the name of the founder of the Complainant. As asserted by the Complainant, the Trademark is a very unique name and cannot be inadvertently selected even by Koreans.
As the name and address of the Respondent show, the Respondent is a national of the United Kingdom where English is the first language and Korean is merely one of the many foreign languages which are not widely spoken or used in actuality. On the other hand, it is obvious that the domain name, as written in Korean, is intended for use by Korean companies and consumers. From the relevant circumstances of this case, it is difficult to find any justifiable reasons for the Respondent�s registration of the domain name. Having said that, in consideration of the above and particularly, the Respondent�s failure to use the domain name after the registration and to provide any Response to the Complaint, it is found that the circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or at least to prevent the owner of the Trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, as stipulated in Paragraph 4 of the Policy, are fully recognized.
7. Decision
For the reasons stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully established the satisfaction of the three requirements set forth in Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and therefore, pursuant to Articles 4 of the Policy and Paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred from the Respondent to the Complainant.
Boh Young Hwang
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 30, 2003
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy