The Complainant is WIPRO Limited of Bangalore, Karnataka, India, represented by K&S Partners, India.
The Respondent is Igarashi, Katsuhisa of Koutuku, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 11, 2013. On January 11, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 11, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent was listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the disputed domain name.
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 January 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 10, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 11, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on February 18, 2013. 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
The Complainant is an Indian company. It was originally established in 1945 as a vegetable oil manufacturer under the name Western India Vegetable Products Limited. In 1977, it changed its name to Wipro Product Limited and in 1984 changed its name to WIPRO Limited. The name WIPRO is a coined term derived from Western India … Products.
The Complainant now has interests in many businesses and in particular offers global IT and BPO (Business Process Outsourcing) services worldwide, including in Japan. It has 140,000 employees and net revenues for the year ended on March 31, 2012 were over USD 7 billion. It is listed on major stock exchanges including Bombay Stock Exchange, NYSE and NASDAQ.
The Complainant started its business in Japan in 1998. It has a subsidiary in Japan, Wipro Japan KK. The Complainant applied for the trademark WIPRO APPLYING THOUGHT in Japan in 1998 and has a trademark registration in Japan through International Registration No. 949885 for WIPRO since 2011.
The disputed domain name was created in 2001. It resolves to a website that provides information on foreign exchange trading. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark WIPRO to which the generic term “corporate” has been added. It is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the name “Wipro” and the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates. In particular, the Complainant submits that “Wipro” is a distinctive and invented word which can only refer to the Complainant. Registered and used in bad faith
The Complainant submits that there should be no doubt that before registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark WIPRO due to the fame of the Complainant and the fact it had a registration in Japan for WIPRO APPLYING THOUGHT prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant also relies on the fact that the Respondent is the registrant of 79 other domain names including , and to show that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of conduct from which it can be inferred the Respondent is a cybersquatter and should have known of the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a relatively simple case of domain name hijacking for the purposes of commercial gain. The only issue that has caused the Panel concern is the long period of time it has taken the Complainant to bring this complaint. This is dealt with below. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark WIPRO and a generic term, “corporate”. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the registered trademark WIPRO.
The Panel finds the first part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests.
The fact that “Wipro” is in an inventive word makes it difficult to see how the Respondent could establish it had rights or legitimate interests. The use of the website under the disputed domain name to provide information on foreign exchange trading has nothing to do with the word “Wipro”.
None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Panel finds the second part of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The only concern the Panel has in this case is the long time (12 years) that the Complainant has taken to bring this Complaint.
The Complainant has relied upon the fact that the Respondent has registered another 79 domain names, some of which are clearly related to other companies to bring the case within paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy:
“you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct”
Delay is not, in itself, a reason to deny a complaint (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”, paragraph 4.10.). However, if the Complainant has not been concerned about this registration for 12 years, it may suggest that the Complainant has not been prevented from reflecting its trademark in the corresponding domain name. Nevertheless, the fact that the Respondent has registered numerous other domain names which are related to other companies suggests that at the time of registration it knew or should have known of the Complainant.
In order to find out more about the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, the Panel has also looked at the page the disputed domain name resolves to. (See paragraph 4.5 of the WIPO Overview 2.0 for the panel’s power to do so.) There are links placed within the text to commercial websites that offer commercial foreign exchange trading services. The links are in certain words in the website that are not obvious to a casual observer, particularly if they cannot read Japanese.
This case, therefore, falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The Panel finds that the third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied. 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 disputed domain name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy