The Complainant is Hayashi Telempu Co., Ltd. of Nagoya, Japan, represented by Nagashima Ohno & Tsunematsu, Japan.
The Respondent is Takashi Knoshita of Nagoya, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with D, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 16, 2015. On June 16, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 June 29, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 19, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 20, 2015.
The Center appointed Keiji Kondo as the sole panelist in this matter on July 29, 2015. 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 operates its business globally with subsidiaries worldwide and owns a trademark registration with the Japan Patent Office for its company name ‘‘Hayashi Telempu Kabushiki Kaisha’’.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 6, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
(1) Identical or confusingly similar
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark ‘‘Hayashi Telempu’’. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix ‘‘.com’’ and the hyphen corresponding to the space between words should be disregarded in the determination of identity of the domain name and the trademark.
(2) No rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant has not granted the Respondent the right to use the Complainant’s trademark in any manner.
The Respondent has registered, and maintains its registration of, the disputed domain name under the disguise that the Respondent is identical with the Complainant. Therefore, it is inconceivable that the Respondent has any kind of rights or legitimate interests in respects of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent is not offering any goods or services under the name of “Hayashi Telempu”. It is impossible for the Respondent to be commonly known by the name “Hayashi Telempu”.
The website to which the disputed domain name resolves is used as a parking site that redirects viewers to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) website, and the Respondent presumably derives benefits from advertising fees paid by the owners of the linked websites. Therefore, by using a domain name that is identical with the Complainant’s company name, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with the intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers.
(3) Bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name
(a) Registration in bad faith
The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since the Respondent knew, or at least should have known, the Complainant’s trademark HAYASHI TELEMPU. Since the Respondent registered the disputed domain name that is essentially identical with the Complainant’s company name, using the Complainant’s company address and telephone number (though incorrectly) and under the name that is quite alike the contact person as displayed in the WhoIs information for the Complainant’s website, it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware, at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, that there existed a company named “Hayashi Telempu”.
(b) Use in bad faith
The fact the Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name that is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and continues to use such domain name to redirect Internet users to the website ‘‘’’ is a sufficient ground to determine that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Respondent registered and continues to use the disputed domain name, pretending that it is identical with the Complainant and thereby concealing its true identity.
Such use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is malicious and, as such, should be presumed bad faith.
By using the disputed domain name , the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark HAYASHI TELEMPU as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. The Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to the PPC links for commercial gain that will presumably be obtained from click-through revenues. 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 consists of ‘‘hayashi-telempu’’ and ‘‘.com’’. The term ‘‘hayashi-telempu’’ has no other meaning than identifying the Complainant and ‘‘.com’’ is a gTLD. The company name of the Complainant, for which the Complainant has a trademark registration, consists of “Hayashi”, “Telempu” and “Kabushiki Kaisha”. “Hayashi” is the family name of the founder of the Complainant, but “Telempu” has no dictionary meaning. “Kabushiki Kaisha” means “stock company” under the Company Law of Japan. Therefore, the principal part of the disputed domain name is identical to the principal part of the company name and registered trademark of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the Complainant’s trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the said mark (or any part thereof).
The Respondent is not actively using the disputed domain name. It is used only to direct viewers to a parking website, which is presumably a PPC website. The Respondent is not offering any goods or services under the name of ‘‘Hayashi Telempu’’. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name ‘‘Hayashi Telempu’’. The Respondent has defaulted and as such has not presented the Panel with any other basis on which to find that the Respondent has rights or legitimated interests.
Therefore, the panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name includes the principal part of the Complainant’s registered trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name under the disguise that the Respondent is identical with the Complainant. In addition, “telempu” has no dictionary meaning, and there is no reason why it should follow the specific family name “Hayashi”. Without intention to reference the Complainant’s company name, no one would combine “Hayashi” and “telempu”.
In view of the abovementioned circumstances, it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark at the registration of the disputed domain name.
Moreover, the disputed domain name is used only to direct viewers to a parking site, which is presumably a PPC website, and viewers clicking a link on the parking site will be redirected to other commercial websites. It is not known at this stage whether the Respondent earns money by parking the disputed domain name at the parking website, but merely parking a domain name without a specific reason, for example, for setting up a new website having a legitimate purpose, should, in these circumstances, be regarded as using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Considering the substantial identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s company name, merely maintaining the disputed domain name by parking obviously interferes with the business of the Complainant, and such maintenance itself is in bad faith.
Therefore, considering the abovementioned circumstances, the panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Keiji Kondo
Sole Panelist
Date: August 12, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy