The Complainant is EUTELSAT S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service by Value-Domain / Kaoru Kamimura, Japan, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-D and O (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2019. On August 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 8, 2019, 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 August 8, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed in English an amended Complaint on August 8, 2019.
On August 8, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Japanese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 8, 2019, the Complainant requested English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified, in English and Japanese, the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 14, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2019. The Center received an email communication in Japanese from the Respondent on August 22, 2019. On August 22, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties in English and Japanese regarding a possible settlement. No substantive Response was filed with the Center. On September 4, 2019, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to appoint the Panel.
The Center appointed Haig Oghigian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 17, 2019. 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 Administrative Panel finds the following as uncontested facts:
- The Complainant is the owner the EUTELSAT trademark (first registered on June 20, 1983, International registration number 479499) and various other forms since in multiple jurisdictions.
- The Complainant registered its domain name first on October 29, 1996.
- The Complainant has used these trademarks in association with the provision of video broadcasting, satellite newsgathering, broadband services and data connectivity via 37 satellites across the world, establishing it as a well-known brand globally.
- The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 29, 2019. It appears the website remains inactive to date. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant claims the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to their own trademarks and ownership rights. It further claims the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It argues that the use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is in bad faith and, therefore, requests the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant accordingly. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a response to the Complaint. However, the Respondent Kaoru Kamimura did send to the Center an email in Japanese dated August 22, 2019, indicating an intention to abandon the disputed domain name and that this intention should replace the submission of a formal response to the Complaint. 6. Discussion and Findings
Language of the Proceeding: The first item to address is the language of this administrative proceeding. The principle established under Rules, paragraph 11 (a), is that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.” Based on communications from the disputed domain name registrar, Japanese is the language of the registration agreement. Accordingly, the initial starting place for the language of the proceeding should be in Japanese, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise.
In this instance, the Panel notes that the Center sent the Respondent multiple email notices in English and Japanese explaining the proceedings and noting the Complainant’s request that the proceedings be held in English. The notices included a sentence in English and in Japanese notifying the Respondent that unless there is an objection to proceeding in English, the Center would proceed on the basis that the Respondent had no objection that English be the language of the proceeding.
The only communication from the Respondent is an email dated August 22, 2019, in which the Respondent Kaoru Kamimura notified the Center in Japanese of an intention to let the disputed domain name go, and that the email shall serve to replace the submission of a formal response to the Complaint (as translated).
Given the factors stated in the Complaint and circumstances outlined above, the Panel determines it proper to go forward in these proceedings in English. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s EUTELSAT trademark. It differs from the Complainant’s trademark merely by the addition of “protest-” before “eutelsat”, and the addition of “.com” to the end. The Panel notes the Complainant’s registration of , which provides further similarity. The Panel finds the mere addition of a descriptor in front a registered and well-known trademark does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element (see AB Electrolux v. ID Shield Service,WIPO Case No. D2015-2027and its progeny), nor does the addition of “.com” after the trademark (F.Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451).
Under the principles set forth in section 1.8 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), this Panel determines that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s EUTELSAT trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant indicates it has never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name by using its trademark. There is no business relationship between the Parties, and the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Noting the nature of the disputed domain name and the uniqueness of the Complainant’s name, the Respondent has not responded to provide any evidence of legitimate use, but rather expressed the desire to abandon the disputed domain name. Accordingly, based on the available record and Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii),the Panel finds that the second element is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a global brand for its products and finds it difficult to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the brand, and just happened to register a confusingly similar disputed domain name . Based on the nature of the disputed domain name, the uniqueness of the Eutelsat name, the fact that the disputed domain name has not been used for a website, and the fact that the Respondent expressed the desire to abandon the disputed domain name and has failed in any way to challenge the Complainant’s contentions, the Panel finds that the third element is met. 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.
以上の理由により、処理方針第4条(i)項および手続規則第１５条に従い、紛争処理パネルは当該ドメイン名を申立人へ移転することを命じる。
Haig Oghigian
Sole Panelist
Date: September 25, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy