WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Samsung Networks Inc. v. woo kyungwon Case No. DBZ2010-0001 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Samsung Networks Inc., Seoul, Republic of Korea, represented by Shinsegi Patent Law Firm, Republic of Korea.
The Respondent is woo kyungwon, Incheon, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 12, 2010. On January 13, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to N LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 19, 2010, N LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a communication by the Registrar that the Complaint incorrectly named the Registrar, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 27, 2010. The Center verified that 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 27, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 16, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 22, 2010.
The Center appointed Young Hill Liew as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 2010. 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 responsible for managing the domain names on behalf of the member companies of the Samsung Group, including the registration and administration of many domain names for these member companies.
The SAMSUNG mark has been used by the Samsung Group since the 1930s throughout the world. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Corporation, the parent companies of the Samsung Group (hereafter collectively referred to as the “Samsung Group”), have registered SAMSUNG as a trademark in their names. They have also registered approximately 300 trademarks and service marks associated with the mark SAMSUNG across all classes of goods and services in the Republic of Korea. In addition, Samsung Group has registered the mark SAMSUNG in numerous jurisdictions as a trademark in numerous classes connected to its business as below:
Trademark
Country
Class
Reg. No./Date
SAMSUNG
USA
9
2,929,514/May 1, 2005
1,164,353/Aug 11, 1981
SAMSUNG
CTM
7, 9, 11, 14, 37, 38, 42
506881/Feb. 25, 2000
SAMSUNG
Canada
7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 21, 37
TMA451,442/Dec 8, 1995
SAMSUNG
International Register
7, 9, 10, 14, 16
542299/May 8, 1989
SAMSUNG
France
9, 11
1461305/Apr. 18, 1988
SAMSUNG
Denmark
9, 11
1981 2155VR/Aug. 28, 1981
SAMSUNG
Italy
7, 9, 11, 14, 37, 42
659609/Oct. 3, 1995
SAMSUNG
Liechtenstein
7, 9, 11, 14
7395/Jan. 1, 1988
SAMSUNG
Monaco
7, 9,11
R14670/May 23, 2003
SAMSUNG
Switzerland
9,11
P294435/Sep. 29, 1978
SAMSUNG
Sweden
9,11
181658/Jun. 4, 1982
SAMSUNG
Norway
9,11
209696/Jul. 12, 2001
SAMSUNG
Finland
7, 9, 11, 14
229715/Feb.27, 2004
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name with N LLC, on September 23, 2009. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the trademark SAMSUNG has been registered extensively throughout the world and the Samsung Group has continuously used the trademark SAMSUNG for many decades. Therefore, the Complainant contends that these SAMSUNG trademarks are both distinctive and famous.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Samsung Group's trademark SAMSUNG because the dominant portion of the domain name is composed of the registered trademark SAMSUNG, with the addition of the country code top level domain (ccTLD) “.bz”. The Complainant submits that the use of the ccTLD “.bz” is insufficient in overcoming the overall impression and confusing similarity between the Samsung Group's trademark, SAMSUNG, and the domain name .
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in dispute. It is argued that the Respondent does not have any connection with the company name of the Samsung Group or with its activity. And neither the Respondent nor the Respondent's business is commonly known by the name “samsung”.
Moreover, the Complainant claims that the domain name in dispute was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has opened and managed a website with the domain name in dispute which contains links to other companies' websites, all of which do not sell goods from the Samsung Group but from other unrelated companies. Further, the Complainant submits that the Respondent offered the domain name for sale. Thus the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the domain name in dispute for the purpose of selling it to the Samsung Group for an amount which does not correspond with the cost of registration, which is regarded as evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith under Paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in question; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Selection of language
According to paragraph 11 of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement unless the panel decides otherwise. It is noted that the language of the registration agreement for the domain name in dispute is English. Therefore English shall be the language of the administrative proceeding in this case. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that the Samsung Group is the owner of the registered trademark SAMSUNG in many jurisdictions throughout the world.
The domain name in dispute consists of the trademark that the Complainant has rights in, and “.bz” should be ignored for the purpose of assessing similarity because it is merely a signification of the country code top level domain.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has proven that the domain name in dispute is identical to the trademark SAMSUNG in which the Complainant has rights pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has failed to file any Response in these proceedings. The Samsung Group has an established reputation in many jurisdictions throughout the world in its trademark SAMSUNG. And the Complainant has asserted that it has neither licensed nor otherwise authorized the Respondent to use the Samsung Group's trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating any such mark.
The Panel agrees that “where a complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name, it is incumbent upon the respondent to come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion.” Do the Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624 (August 21, 2000). Thus, in the absence of a Response or any communication from the Respondent the Panel believes that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name in dispute, which the Respondent has not rebutted, and satisfied the second element of the test in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent offered the domain name in dispute for sale on “”, a website skilled in buying and selling domain names.
It is well established that registering a domain name for the primary purposes of offering to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the domain name for an amount in excess of the registration cost is evidence that a domain name was registered and being used in bad faith (4(b)(i) of the Policy).
It also appears that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website (4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Young Hill Liew
Sole Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy