NeoWiz Co. v. Joong-sub Lee
Claim Number: FA0204000110809
Complainant
is NeoWiz Co., Seoul, SOUTH KOREA
(“Complainant”). Respondent is Joong-sub Lee, Kyungkido, SOUTH KOREA (“Respondent”).
The
domain name at issue is <sayclub.biz>,
registered with Yesnic.
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of her knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant
has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint,
as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the
Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP
Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against
Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 24, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 25, 2002.
On
April 29, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 20,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On June 3, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed Sandra Franklin as
the single Panelist.
Having
reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”)
finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of
the STOP Rules. Therefore, the Panel
may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with
the STOP Policy, STOP Rules, the Forum’s STOP Supplemental Rules and any rules
and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of
any Response from Respondent.
Transfer
of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
A.
Complainant
The
<sayclub.biz> domain name is identical to Complainant's SAYCLUB
mark.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the <sayclub.biz> domain
name.
Respondent
registered the <sayclub.biz> domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response.
Complainant has registered its SAYCLUB
mark in South Korea. Complainant uses
the SAYCLUB mark in relation to computer information services, programming
services, communications and electronic message transmission. Complainant holds the registration for
<sayclub.com>, <sayclub.net>, and <sayclub.co.kr>.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on March 27, 2002.
Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the STOP Rules
and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b)
of the STOP Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the
following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be
transferred:
(1)
the domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which
the Complainant has rights;
and
(2) the Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3)
the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
Due
to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel
will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where
applicable.
Under
the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name
in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant
has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily
involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service
mark in which a Complainant asserts rights.
The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the
disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a
disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant
asserts rights.
Complainant
has established that it has rights to the SAYCLUB mark through registration in
South Korea. The SAYCLUB mark is
identical to Respondent’s <sayclub.biz> domain name.
The
Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Furthermore,
when Respondent fails to submit a Response the Panel is permitted to make all
inferences in favor of Complainant. See 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”).
Respondent has not come forward to
establish that it has any trademark or service mark rights to the SAY CLUB
mark. Furthermore, Respondent has not
come forward with any evidence that it is doing business under the name
SAYCLUB, therefore Respondent has not established that it has rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶
4(c)(i). See Nat’l Acad. Of
Recording Arts & Sci Inc. v. Lsites, FA 103059 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb.
11, 2002) (finding that, because Respondent did not come forward with a
Response, the Panel could infer that it had no trademark or service marks
identical to <grammy.biz> and therefore had no rights or legitimate
interests in the domain name).
If Respondent were to use the disputed
domain name it would cause a likelihood of confusion as to the source,
sponsorship and affiliation of the domain name because it is identical to
Complainant’s mark. Therefore any use
by Respondent would not be considered a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See
William L. Lyon & Assocs., Inc. v. Yata, FA 103043 (Nat. Arb. Forum
March 21, 2002) (finding the
Respondent’s “intent to trade [on] the goodwill of Complainant’s mark, by
attracting Internet users confused as to the likely affiliation between
Complainant and Respondent’s website” indicated the Respondent had no rights or
legitimate interests pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Credit
Suisse Group o/b/o Winterthur Ins. Co. v. Pal-Ex Kft, FA 102971 (Nat. Arb.
Forum Feb. 25, 2002) (“The use of another's trademark to attract users to
Respondent's domain is not considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or
services pursuant to STOP Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
Respondent is known to the Panel as Joong-sub Lee. Respondent has not come forward with any evidence to establish
that it is commonly known as <sayclub.biz>. Therefore Respondent has no rights or
legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to STOP Policy ¶
4(c)(iii). See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan.
23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have rights in domain name when
Respondent is not known by the mark); see also CBS Broadcasting, Inc. v. LA-Twilight-Zone, D2000-0397 (WIPO June
19, 2000) (finding that Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or
legitimate interests in the <twilight-zone.net> domain name since
Complainant had been using the TWILIGHT ZONE mark since 1959).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Based on the fact that Complainant and
Respondent are from the same country it can be inferred that Respondent was on
notice as to Complainant’s rights in the SAYCLUB mark when it registered <sayclub.biz>. Therefore Respondent registered the disputed
domain name in bad faith. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA
94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 17, 2000) (evidence of bad faith includes actual or
constructive knowledge of commonly known mark at the time of registration).
The <sayclub.biz> domain
name is identical to Complainant's SAYCLUB mark and the Internet user will
likely believe that there is an affiliation between Respondent and
Complainant. Registration of the <sayclub.biz>
domain name despite it being identical is evidence of bad faith pursuant to
STOP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,
D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that bad faith registration and use
where it is “inconceivable that the respondent could make any active use of the
disputed domain names without creating a false impression of association with
the complainant”); see also Pavillion
Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000)
(finding that the “domain names are so obviously connected with the
Complainants that the use or registration by anyone other than Complainants
suggests ‘opportunistic bad faith’”).
The Panel finds that STOP Policy ¶
4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having
established all three elements required under the Start-up Trademark Opposition
Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the
domain name <sayclub.biz> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant and subsequent challenges under the STOP Policy against this domain
name shall not be permitted.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: June 17, 2002
Click Here to return
to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page