The Complainant is ORIX Kabushiki Kaisha of Tokyo, Japan, represented by Saegusa & Partners, Japan.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / James W.Ford, RBTC of Stockwood, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2017, 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 the Complainant on December 26, 2017, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 27, 2017. In reply to a request for clarification sent by the Center on December 27, 2017, the Complainant filed a second amended Complaint on December 28, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaints 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 proceedings commenced on January 8, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 28, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 2, 2018.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on February 20, 2018. 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 company specialized in financial services. The Complainant owns hundreds of trademark registrations over the mark ORIX in Japan and other 31 jurisdictions in respect of an extensive range of goods and services, including financial services. The Complainant holds, inter alia, United States of America Trademark Registration No. 1559228 for ORIX, registered on October 3, 1989 for services in class 36.
The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on September 23, 2017. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to a website showing the message “ – We Built This Bank For You” and a “Member Login” section. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademark ORIX.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name .
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark or service mark rights and the identity/ confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark or service mark.
The Panel notes that, long before the registration of the disputed domain name , the Complainant had registered the word mark ORIX in Japan and many other countries or regions in respect of a variety of goods and services and thus acquired the relevant trademark rights.
The disputed domain name is . Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “orixebank”. The Complainant contends that “orixebank” in the disputed domain name shall be read as “orix” and “ebank”. Since the Respondent does not rebut such contention, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission. The Panel notes that the first part of the disputed domain name “orix” is completely identical with the Complainant’s registered mark ORIX and the second part “ebank” is commonly used to refer to the online banking services offered by financial institutions. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s mark ORIX in its entirety is not capable of being substantively distinguishable from the Complainant’s mark merely because of the generic suffixation “ebank”. The disputed domain name , therefore, is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s mark ORIX.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions as stated above, the Respondent does not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name .
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances which can demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contention.
According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, presents the logo “ - We Build This Bank For You” and states that “O is a certified investment company offering profitable and sustainable investment opportunities to the general online investors” and “Nowadays we accepts funds from people around the world.”
The Panel notes the evidence provided by the Complainant that the mark ORIX has been registered and used since 1989 in relation to the goods and services, including investment banking and financial services. Given that ORIX is a highly distinctive mark created by the Complainant, it is unlikely that the Respondent coincidently registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ORIX mark and use it to offer the online investment services. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s act of offering online investment services through the disputed domain name is sufficient to prove that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the disputed domain name’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name’s website or of the investment services offered on that website. Given that the Respondent is soliciting “funds from people around the world” for its so-called online investment services, its freeriding on the reputation of the Complainant’s mark ORIX through registration and use of the disputed domain name is dangerous to the safety and security of the Complainant’s financial business and is also fraudulent to the investors misled by the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv). Therefore, the Complainant has successfully proven paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: March 6, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy