Sanyoprojectors.com

The timeline behind sanyoprojectors.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Sanyo Fisher Company, a division of Sanyo North America Corporation v. Domain Adminstrator Claim Number: FA0705000992178 PARTIES Complainant is Sanyo Fisher Company, a division of Sanyo North America Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Evan Finkel, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, 725 S. Figueroa St., Suite 2800, Los Angeles, CA 90017. Respondent is Domain Adminstrator (“Respondent”), P.O. Box 588, West Bay Grand Cayman WB, Cayman Islands. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <sanyoprojectors.com>, registered with Encirca Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Louis E. Condon as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on May 24, 2007; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on May 25, 2007. On May 24, 2007, Encirca Inc confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name is registered with Encirca Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Encirca Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Encirca Inc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On May 29, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of June 18, 2007 by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sanyoprojectors.com by e-mail. Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On June 20, 2007, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Louis E. Condon as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant makes the following assertions: 1. Respondent’s <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANYO mark. 2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name. 3. Respondent registered and used the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name in bad faith. B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Sanyo Fisher Company, a division of Sanyo North America Corp., is a multinational electronics corporation that manufactures a broad range of electronic products. Complainant has operated under the SANYO mark in connection with the manufacture and sale of its various products for almost 50 years. Complainant holds several trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) going back to 1960 for the SANYO mark (Reg. No. 695,970 issued April 12, 1960). Respondent registered the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name on December 5, 2006. Respondent’s domain name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party websites, both related and unrelated to Complainant, including links to products and services in direct competition with Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant’s registration of its SANYO mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark. See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”). Respondent’s <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANYO mark, as it contains the entire mark and simply adds on an additional word, “projectors,” which is descriptive of one of Complainant’s main products. Previous panels have held that the mere addition of a word to a complainant’s mark, especially where the added word describes the complainant, does not negate any confusing similarity with a complainant’s mark. Moreover, the addition of the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to the disputed domain name is irrelevant to the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis as a top-level domain is a required element of all domain names. Therefore, the disputed domain name in the instant proceeding is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SANYO mark. See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Quin, D2000-0314 (WIPO June 12, 2000) (finding that the disputed domain names <caterpillarparts.com> and <caterpillarspares.com> were confusingly similar to the registered trademarks CATERPILLAR and CATERPILLER DESIGN because “the idea suggested by the disputed domain names and the registered trademarks is that the goods or services offered in association with [the] domain name are manufactured by or sold by the Complainant or one of the Complainants [sic] approved distributors. The disputed trademarks contain one distinct component, the word Caterpillar”); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar); see also Busy Body, Inc. v. Fitness Outlet Inc., D2000-0127 (WIPO Apr. 22, 2000) ("[T]he addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) name ‘.com’ is . . . without legal significance since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants . . . ."). The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant has the initial burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name. Once Complainant has established a prima facie case, however, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”); see also Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist). Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint raises the presumption that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. See Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”); see also Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding it appropriate for the panel to draw adverse inferences from the respondent’s failure to reply to the complaint). Nevertheless, the Panel will still examine the record to see if Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c). Respondent’s WHOIS information does not indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name, and there is nothing else in the record to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In addition, Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the SANYO mark in any way, and Respondent is not associated with Complainant or Complainant’s business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail"); see also Broadcom Corp. v. Intellifone Corp., FA 96356 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 5, 2001) (finding no rights or legitimate interests because the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or using the domain name in connection with a legitimate or fair use). Respondent’s <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name resolves to a website displaying links to various third-party websites, several of which offer goods and services in direct competition both with Complainant’s business in general, and specifically with its projectors. Complainant alleges, and the Panel infers, that Respondent receives click-through fees when Internet users click on these links. The Panel finds that this does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See TM Acquisition Corp. v. Sign Guards, FA 132439 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 31, 2002) (finding that the respondent’s diversionary use of the complainant’s marks to send Internet users to a website which displayed a series of links, some of which linked to the complainant’s competitors, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services); see also Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name). The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Based on the undisputed evidence presented in the Complaint, the Panel finds that Respondent is using the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name to accrue click-through fees. Respondent is therefore taking advantage of the likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s sponsorship and affiliation with the disputed domain name. This indicates that Respondent registered and is using the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Amazon.com, Inc. v. Shafir, FA 196119 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“As Respondent is using the domain name at issue in direct competition with Complainant, and giving the impression of being affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant, this circumstance qualifies as bad faith registration and use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”). Moreover, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a website displaying links to websites in direct competition with Complainant’s business. Such use constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s business and also qualifies as bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Travant Solutions, Inc. v. Cole, FA 203177 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2003) (“Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), because it is operating on behalf of a competitor of Complainant . . .”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Noel, FA 198805 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003) (“Respondent registered a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to divert Internet users to a competitor's website. It is a reasonable inference that Respondent's purpose of registration and use was to either disrupt or create confusion for Complainant's business in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) [and] (iv).”). The Panel thus finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied. DECISION Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief should be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sanyoprojectors.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Louis E. Condon, Panelist Dated: June 29, 2007 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.