The Complainant is World Vision International of Monrovia, California, United States of America, represented by Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, United States of America.
The Respondent is Yoichi Koyachi of Zamashi, Kanagawa, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 28, 2014. On August 29, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 30, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent, Yoichi Koyachi 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 September 3, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 23, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on September 24, 2014.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on October 3, 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
The Complainant is a Christian humanitarian organization dedicated to fighting poverty. It operates in many countries around the world assisting children living in poverty. The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the trademark WORLD VISION in various countries including Japan.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 9, 2013. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is a page featuring article on various aspects of the prostitution industry in Japan. (The Complainant in its Complaint, based on machine translations of the content of the website, stated the website also made reference to paedophilia. There is no direct reference to paedophilia on the website, but only a reference that it is hard to believe that some prostitutes are over 18 years old.) 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is made entirely up of the registered trademark WORLD VISION and the geographical description "Mongolia" to which the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".org" has been added. It is therefore confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark WORLD VISION.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. WORLD VISION is not related in any way to the salacious content of the website.
The Complainant submits that the use the Respondent has made on its website providing salacious content shows the Respondent's bad faith. The false association of the Complainant with pornographic content causes clear harm to the Complainant and relies on the decision in Madonna Ciccone p/k/a Madonna v Dan Parisi and ,WIPO Case No. D2000-0847, which found that the use of a domain name that resolved to a pornographic site, was registration and use in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is made up of the registered trademark WORLD VISION, the geographical term "Mongolia" and the gTLD ".org". The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark WORLD VISION. The first part of 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. Paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") provides:
"While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP."
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 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 use of the disputed domain name to provide information about prostitution cannot be considered to be in good faith.
The second part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the same reasons as those above, the Panel has no hesitation in finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. The use clearly tarnishes the WORLD VISION trademark which has been found to be registration and use in bad faith. (See WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 3.11). 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: October 16, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy