Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/t/a Sony Corporation v. Mary Ann Dewan
Claim Number: FA0809001223466
Complainant is Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/t/a Sony
Corporation (“Complainant”),
represented by Anthony V. Lupo of Arent Fox LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is Mary Ann Dewan (“Respondent”),
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <sonycareer.net>, registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically September 5, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint September 8, 2008.
On September 10, 2008, Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sonycareer.net> domain name is registered with Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide verified that Respondent is bound by the Melbourne It, Ltd. d/b/a Internet Names Worldwide registration agreement and thereby has agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On September 10, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of September 30, 2008, 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@sonycareer.net by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On October 9, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson to sit as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. The domain name that Respondent registered, <sonycareer.net>, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SONY mark.
2. Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <sonycareer.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <sonycareer.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Sony Kabushiki
Kaisha a/t/a Sony Corporation, is a leading manufacturer of consumer and
professional electronics products, and employs nearly 180,000 individuals
worldwide. Complainant owns
registrations for its SONY mark in more than 180 countries, including with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 1,622,127
issued Nov. 13, 1990).
Respondent registered the disputed <sonycareer.net> domain name July 14, 2008, and is currently using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that imitates Complainant’s own website, provides false contact information, and purports to offer employment with Complainant.
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."
Given 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 will draw such inferences as the Panel 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 Complainant to 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the SONY mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). 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 Janus Int’l Holding Co. v. Rademacher, D2002-0201 (WIPO Mar. 5, 2002) ("Panel decisions have held that registration of a mark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the mark is inherently distinctive.").
Respondent’s disputed domain name includes Complainant’s
entire SONY mark, adds the generic word “career,” and adds the generic
top-level domain “.net.” Neither
addition carries any meaningful distinction, as Complainant’s mark remains the
most distinctive and unique element of the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Katadyn
N. Am. v.
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Because Complainant made a prima facie case supporting its allegations, the burden of proof to show such rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name shifts to Respondent. See 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); see also 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”).
Respondent offers no evidence to suggest that it is commonly
known by the disputed
domain name. The WHOIS domain name
registration information. Identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name
as “Mary Ann Dewan,” an identity that bears no resemblance or likeness to the
disputed domain name. Therefore, the
Panel finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the
disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Ian Schrager Hotels, L.L.C. v. Taylor, FA 173369
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 25, 2003)
(finding that without demonstrable evidence to support the assertion that a
respondent is commonly known by a domain name, the assertion must be rejected); see also Wells Fargo & Co.
v. Onlyne Corp. Services11, Inc., FA
198969 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 17, 2003) (“Given the WHOIS contact information
for the disputed domain [name], one can infer that Respondent, Onlyne Corporate
Services11, is not commonly known by the name ‘welsfargo’ in any derivation.”)
Respondent’s disputed domain name and corresponding website merely imitate Complainant’s website, complete with false contact information presumably designed to obtain the private information of those seeking employment with Complainant. In fact, the evidence supports findings that Respondent is engaged in phishing, to the detriment of Internet users and Complainant. No evidence in the record suggests any independent content or usage that would constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and no legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 690796 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <allianzcorp.biz> domain name to fraudulently acquire the personal and financial information of Internet users seeking the complainant’s financial services was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. Ballard, FA 146621 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 13, 2002) (stating that where the respondent copied the complainant’s website in order to steal account information from the complainant’s customers, that the respondent’s “exploitation of the goodwill and consumer trust surrounding the BLIZZARD NORTH mark to aid in its illegal activities is prima facie evidence of a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name”).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied ICANN Policy ¶
4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name diverts Internet users seeking Complainant to a website that purports to belong to Complainant. These facts support findings that Respondent’s use of the website attempts to defraud diverted Internet users and to disrupt Complainant’s operations for Respondent’s own financial gain. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining “competitor” as “one who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitor”); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent).
Respondent’s confusingly similar domain name diverts
Internet users seeking Complainant’s business to a corresponding website that
imitates Complainant and persuades these Internet users to disclose their private
information to a false contact.
Respondent likely seeks to obtain such information for fraudulent
purposes, calculated to result in monetary gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
has engaged in bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir.
2002) ("While an intent to confuse consumers is not required for a finding
of trademark infringement, intent to deceive is strong evidence of a likelihood
of confusion."); see also Perot Sys. Corp. v. Perot.net, FA 95312 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 29, 2000) (finding bad faith where the domain
name in question is obviously connected with the complainant’s well-known
marks, thus creating a likelihood of confusion strictly for commercial gain).
The Panel finds that Respondent’s engagement in a phishing venture using the disputed domain name and corresponding website also supports findings of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii), because it uses deception to purloin information from Complainant’s potential and actual customers. See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Iza, FA 245960 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 3, 2004) (finding that using a domain name that “is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, redirects Internet users to a website that imitates Complainant’s billing website, and is used to fraudulently acquire personal information from Complainant’s clients” is evidence of bad faith registration and use); see also HOPE worldwide, Ltd. v. Jin, FA 320379 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2004) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith because it redirected Internet users to a website that imitated the complainant’s website and was used to fraudulently acquire personal information from the complainant’s potential associates).
The Panel finds that Complainant satisfied the elements of
ICANN Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sonycareer.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Hon. Carolyn Marks Johnson, Panelist
Dated: October 23, 2008.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum