Complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Yeongtong-gu Suwon-si, Republic of Korea, represented by You Me Patent & Law Firm, Republic of Korea.
Respondent is Customer # 400097311 / Gustavo Winchester of Belo Horizonte, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with SiteName (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 14, 2014. On August 14, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 20, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on August 20, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on August 21, 2014.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 22, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 11, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 12, 2014.
The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 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
Complainant is a world famous company in the business of manufacturing and selling a wide variety of goods ranging from consumer electronics to electronic products such as cellular phones, computers and printers. Complainant is a flagship affiliate of the Samsung Group and has been one of the world’s largest information technology company. The Samsung Group was established in 1930 and has become one of the biggest multinational companies in the world. The Samsung brand has been recognized as one of the fastest-growing global brands with its Interbrand ranking at 8th in 2013, and 9th in 2012.
Complainant has numerous trademark and domain name registrations incorporating the corporate name and trade mark, SAMSUNG.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 6, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant asserts, firstly, that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which Complainant has rights. It consists of Complainant’s well-known SAMSUNG trade mark and is combined with the common term “printerdrivers”. The addition of the top-level domain “.com” is irrelevant in determining similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark, and the addition of the common word “printerdrivers” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s mark and to avoid user confusion.
Secondly, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to use the trade mark SAMSUNG or to register a domain name incorporating it. Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name resolves displays links including Complainant’s SAMSUNG mark which is likely to cause confusion and deceive Internet users.
Thirdly, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The worldwide fame of Complainant’s SAMSUNG trade mark creates a strong presumption that Respondent (who has no connection or relationship with Complainant) registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent must have known of Complainant’s famous SAMSUNG mark when registering the disputed domain name. Such use and registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent would mislead Internet users into believing that there is a connection between the disputed domain name and Complainant. Further, a message is displayed on the parking site which reads “want to buy this domain?” This shows that Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to Complainant or the latter’s competitors for commercial gain. This constitutes bad faith. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel agrees that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the SAMSUNG mark in which Complainant has rights. The trade mark SAMSUNG is clearly identifiable in the disputed domain name and the addition of the generic term “printerdrivers”, especially in the context of the kind of goods Complainant is known for, does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s trade mark.
The first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In accordance with established practice following the decisions of many UDRP panels, Complainant is only required to establish a prima facie case showing a lack of rights or legitimate interests on Respondent’s part, after which the burden of production shifts to Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. (See paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition.)
The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor is there evidence that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint filed. The Panel further notes from the case file that the address furnished by Respondent in its domain name registration appears to be false or fictitious as the Center was unable to serve documents to Respondent. The Panel draws a negative inference from these circumstances and in the absence of any explanation from Respondent, the Panel is unable to arrive at a different conclusion.
The Panel is therefore satisfied that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name incorporates a very well-known trade mark. The Panel agrees that it can be surmised that Respondent was well aware of Complainant and/or of its trade mark. In fact, it is the Panel’s view that it would be immensely difficult, in the light of the wide and extensive reputation of the SAMSUNG trade mark, for anyone other than Complainant or entities within the Samsung Group to legitimately use or register a domain name incorporating the said mark. Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name for a parking page featuring sponsored links to other websites selling printers, printer drivers and other related accessories must have been for the calculated aim of attracting and misleading Internet users. Previous UDRP decisions of panels have established the principle that the holding of a domain name registration incorporating a widely recognized or well-known trade mark by someone who has no connection whatsoever with the trade mark may be considered a clear indication of bad faith: see Pepsico, Inc. v. Domain Admin,WIPO Case No. D2006-0435; Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co., WIPO Case No. D2000-0163. The Panel finds that the circumstances fall within the ambit of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy has therefore been established. 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 Complainant.
Francine Tan
Sole Panelist
Date: September 29, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy