The Complainant is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. of Suwonsi, Gyeonggido, Republic of Korea, represented by You Me Patent & Law Firm, Republic of Korea.
The Respondent is Park HyungJin of Gimhaesi, Gyeongsangnamdo, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 17, 2015. On November 17, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on November 25, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 15, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on December 16, 2015.
The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on December 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 is a multinational electronics company with headquarters in the Republic of Korea and over 179 offices in 61 different countries. In 2013, the Complainant reported sales revenues of USD 228.7 billion with a net profit of USD 30.5 billion, and was ranked 8th in Interbrand's list of best global brands.
The Respondent appears to be a Korean individual with a residence in the Republic of Korea.
The Complainant owns numerous trademark rights for SAMSUNG from at least 1993. The Complainant also owns rights in SAMSUNG GEAR, from at least November, 2013.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 5, 2013. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to marks in which the Complainant has rights. Specifically, the Complainant asserts that it has numerous trademark registrations for SAMSUNG and SAMSUNG-based marks, including the mark SAMSUNG GEAR, around the world.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect.
Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that the disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant's announcement on the release of a new technology using the mark SAMSUNG GEAR. Considering the fame associated with the Complainant and the SAMSUNG mark, there can be no reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name other than to profit by selling or making misleading use of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for SAMSUNG and the SAMSUNG family of marks in numerous jurisdictions around the world. Among them, SAMSUNG GEAR is registered in the Republic of Korea and the European Union, and the applications and use of the mark predate the Respondent's registration for the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant's mark, and the lack of space in the disputed domain name is inconsequential since embedded spaces are not permissible in domain names.
For the reasons mentioned above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie basis has been established, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the records that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point.
For the reasons provided above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that there are more than sufficient reasons to find bad faith in this case.
First, given the high level of fame associated with the SAMSUNG mark – especially in the Republic of Korea – it is highly unlikely for the Respondent who appears to be a Korean individual residing in the Republic of Korea to have registered the disputed domain name without being aware of the Complainant and its business. Rather, based on the timing of registration for the disputed domain name, it is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name after learning of the Complainant's new Samsung Gear technology.
As to the use in bad faith, the Panel finds paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy to be applicable in this case since the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links.
Further, the Respondent was named respondent in a number of UDRP proceedings in the past including but not limited to Swedbank AB v. Park HyungJin,WIPO Case No. D2008-1499 (), Luigi Lavazza S.p.A. v. Park HyungJin,WIPO Case No. D2013-0973 (), and Genpact Luxembourg S.a.r.l. v. Park Hyungjin,WIPO Case No. D2014-1360 (). In all prior cases, the panels found the Respondent to have registered and used the domain names in bad faith, and ordered that they be transferred to the complainants.
For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third and final element has been sufficiently 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 the Complainant.
Ik-Hyun Seo
Sole Panelist
Date: January 12, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy