Complainant is Omron Corporation of Kyoto, Japan, represented by Sanderson & Co., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Respondent is Mas i Canas SCP of Barcelona, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 23, 2011. On June 23, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 24, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that "Mas i Canas SCP" is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 29, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 19, 2011. Respondent did not submit any formal response. However, the Center received an email communication from Jordi Mas, the administrative and technical contact for the disputed domain name on June 23, 2011.
The Center appointed Nicolas Ulmer as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 2011. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
Complainant Omron Corporation is part of a major multinational group. The Complainant maintains that “The Omron Group” employs more than 35,000 persons all over the world, and has annual sales in excess of USD 7 Billion. Complainant’s business is the manufacture and sale of automation components, equipment and systems, including medical equipment.
Complainant owns many trademarks for the mark OMRON in the European Community, Japan and the United States of America (Annex 4 of the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that all elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are here readily met and asks that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.
More specifically, Complainant asserts that, on the basis of its investigation, neither Respondent, nor its “prime mover” – who Complainant identifies as Jordi Mas (the administrative and technical contact for the disputed domain name) – have any rights in or trademark registrations for OMRON, that Complainant has never authorized Respondent’s use of the term OMRON; and that Respondent is not commonly known by that name.
Complainant further alleges that Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name is or was for illegitimate commercial gain – attracting users to the site which sells the products of others, including in some cases, products competing with the Complainant’s products, and products purporting to be Complainant’s products (Annex 6 of the Complaint). Complainant adds that its searches reveal that Respondent has owned a variety of more than 130 domain names and currently owns more than ten domain names, and that “one can assume” that Respondent is also specialized in domain name reselling. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a formal Response. As indicated above, the Center received an email communication on June 23, 2011 from Jordi Mas, as follows:
“Actually I'm not the owner of the domain ; my registration has expired since 17/06/2011 and I don't renewed it.
Please, you are free to re-register after "redemption period", or transfer directly right now if Godaddy allows it.”1 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the entirety of Complainant’s registered trademark OMRON. It is well established that the addition of a generic top level domain identifier (gtld) such as “info” is not taken into account when determining whether a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark, and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is readily proven. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence in the case record that would indicate that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or is known by the name ”Omron” or any variation of it. Complainant, for its part, has strongly affirmed that Respondent “is in no way authorized by or affiliated with Complainant” and has no rights in its trademarks. In the absence of any reply, evidence or explanation from Respondent, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proving the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name was registered in 2010, well after a number of Complainant’s OMRON trademarks were registered, and long after Complainant became a large international corporation. The Panel is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with knowledge of Complainants’ rights. The Panel also finds that the subsequent use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users for commercial purposes and financial gain was here in bad faith. See generally, Elli Lilly Company V. Private Whois Services,WIPO Case No. D2011-0624. In light of this finding, the Panel holds that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied and it is not necessary to examine Complainant’s further argument that one should assume that Respondent is in the business of domain name reselling. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Nicolas Ulmer
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 8, 2011
1 The Panel notes that the Center contacted the Registrar regarding the issue of domain name expiry, as indicated in the email from Jordi Mas, and the Registrar has advised as follows: “[t]he domain name now has a June 17, 2012 expiration date and payment of the overdue renewal fees will be expected from the prevailing party upon decision of the arbitration forum.” The Center, in its email of June 29, 2011, relayed the Registrar’s advice to the Parties.
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy