The Complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Seoul, Republic of Korea, represented by You Me Patent & Law Firm, Republic of Korea.
The Respondent is Anika Van Leeuwen (Jag Web Ventures) of Hilversum, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 13, 2013. On December 13, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent 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 January 7, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 27, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 28, 2014.
The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 2014. 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 A. Complainant
The Complainant is a company incorporated in the Republic of Korea and the owner of numerous registrations worldwide for the trade mark SAMSUNG (the “Trade Mark”). The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark. B. Respondent
The Respondent is an individual apparently with an address in the Netherlands. C. The Disputed Domain Name
The disputed domain name was registered on January 16, 2011. D. The Website at the Disputed Domain Name
The website at the disputed domain name (the “Website”) provides links to websites purportedly offering downloads for updating the Complainant’s Samsung printer drivers, but which links are in fact redirected to a website advertising and offering for sale an anti-virus product of a third party unrelated to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant made the following submissions in the Complaint.
The Complainant is an internationally famous organisation, founded in 1938, and in the business of manufacturing and selling a variety of consumer goods, including white goods, consumer electronics, cellular phones, computers and printers. The Complainant is also a world leader in semiconductor technology.
According to Interbrand’s ranking of global brands, the Trade Mark was ranked 9th in 2012.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. It comprises the Trade Mark in its entirety, together with the non-distinctive words “printer drivers”.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorised by the Complainant in any way and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. It has been used in respect of the Website, which features the Trade Mark and logos of the Complainant and provides several links purportedly to sites offering downloads for updating the Complainant’s Samsung printer drivers. All of the links are in fact redirected to a website advertising and offering for sale a computer anti-virus product known as “ParetoLogic PC Health Advisor”. The Complainant has no relationship with ParetoLogic. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name and the Website in this manner in order to attract Internet users for commercial gain, by causing confusion amongst consumers, who might confuse the Website for a website managed by the Complainant or related to the Complainant or its business. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to prevail. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark acquired through use and registration which predates the date of registration of the disputed domain name by decades.
UDRP panels have consistently held that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale,WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).
It is also established that the addition of generic terms to a domain name has little, if any, effect on a determination of confusing similarity between the domain name and the mark (Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253). The mere addition of a generic or descriptive term does generally not exclude the likelihood of confusion (PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0189).
The disputed domain name contains the Trade Mark in its entirety. The Panel concludes that the use of the generic words “printer drivers” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Trade Mark in any significant way.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfills the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of non-exhaustive circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that a respondent has rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
(i) before any notice to the respondent of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organisation) has been commonly known by the domain name even if the respondent has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue.
There is no evidence that the Complainant has authorised, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the Trade Mark. The Complainant has prior rights in the Trade Mark which precede the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by decades. The Panel finds on the record that there is therefore a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (see Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).
The Respondent has failed to show that it has acquired any trade mark rights in respect of the disputed domain name or that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. To the contrary, the disputed domain name has been used in respect of the Website, which has not been authorised by the Complainant, features prominently the Trade Mark and logos of the Complainant, and purportedly offers links to downloadable upgrades for the Complainant’s printer drivers, which links are in fact all redirected to a website advertising and offering for sale an anti-virus product of a third party unrelated to the Complainant. In all the circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There has been no evidence adduced to show that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the following conduct amounts to registration and use of a domain name in bad faith on the part of a respondent:
By using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
The Panel refers to and repeats the findings under the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy above. This is a clear case of bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has been fulfilled. 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.
Sebastian M.W. Hughes
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 28, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy