Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. Taro Yamamoto
Claim Number: FA0211000133753
PARTIES
Complainant
is Disney Enterprises, Inc.,
Burbank, CA, USA (“Complainant”) represented by J. Andrew Coombs, of J.
Andrew Coombs, A Professional Corporation.
Respondent is Taro Yamamoto,
Saitama, JAPAN (“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <tokyodisneyresort.com>,
registered with A Technology Company,
Inc. d/b/a namesystem.com.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on November 15, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on November 18, 2002.
On
November 22, 2002, A Technology Company, Inc. d/b/a namesystem.com confirmed by
e-mail to the Forum that the domain name <tokyodisneyresort.com> is
registered with A Technology Company, Inc. d/b/a namesystem.com and that
Respondent is the current registrant of the name. A Technology Company, Inc. d/b/a namesystem.com has verified that
Respondent is bound by the A Technology Company, Inc. d/b/a namesystem.com
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
November 25, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of
Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline
of December 16, 2002 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@tokyodisneyresort.com by e-mail.
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
December 30, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute
decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin as
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 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 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
1. Complainant argues that Respondent’s <tokyodisneyresort.com> domain
name is confusingly similar and identical to Complainant’s registered disney and TOKYO DISNEY RESORT marks.
2. Complainant argues that Respondent does
not have rights to or legitimate interests in the <tokyodisneyresort.com> domain name.
3. Complainant argues that Respondent
registered and used the <tokyodisneyresort.com>
domain name in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is the owner of numerous
marks incorporating the DISNEY mark. The DISNEY mark is registered with the
United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USTPO”) on the Principal Register
(Reg. No. 1,162,727). The TOKYO DISNEY RESORT mark is registered in Japan, where
Respondent is listed as residing (Reg.
No. 4,246,975). Moreover, there are several other DISNEY formative marks
registered worldwide.
Since Complainant’s inception in 1923,
Complainant or its predecessors in interest, have continuously used and applied
the DISNEY and subsequent TOKYO DISNEY RESORT mark continuously and have not
given authorization either expressly or implied to Respondent to use the marks.
Complainant is world renown for being a
provider of a multitude of goods and services under its marks. Since
Complainant’s early beginnings in 1923, it has expanded to an international
business enterprise in the production and marketing of numerous goods and
services including, but not limited to, travel, theme parks, resort
destinations and distribution of merchandise related to its enterprise. Over the past eight decades, Complainant has
marketed and expanded its worldwide recognition to a point where the name
DISNEY has become undeniably distinctive.
Complainant also maintains the domain
names <disney.com> and <disneyland.com>. These websites promote its
products and services as well as the Disneyland amusement park. Both of these
websites were registered prior to the registration of <tokyodisneyresort.com>.
Respondent’s <tokyodisneyresort.com> domain name was registered on July 19, 2002. The disputed
domain name is not operational and automatially redirects Internet traffic to a
blank webpage. Respondent has attempted to auction the disputed domain name on
Yahoo! and encouraged Complainant to place a bid starting at $30,000.
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 the 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.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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
has established rights in the DISNEY and TOKYO
DISNEY RESORT marks through
registration with the USTPO and registration with the proper Japanese
authorities, as well as subsequent continuous use of the marks.
Respondent’s <tokyodisneyresort.com>
domain name is identical to Complainant’s TOKYO DISNEY RESORT mark.
Respondent’s <tokyodisneyresort.com> domain name
incorporates Complainant’s entire mark without any variation or reference to
other issues. Moreover, the mere addition of a general top-level domain such as
“.com” does not prevent a finding of identicality. When a disputed domain name
incorporates the entire regitered mark of another, then the domain name can be
said to be ipso facto identical See
Little Six, Inc. v. Domain For Sale,
FA 96967 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 30, 2001) (finding that <mysticlake.net>
is plainly identical to Complainant’s MYSTIC LAKE trademark and service mark); see
also Fed’n of Gay Games, Inc. v. Hodgson & Scanlon, D2000-0432 (WIPO June 28, 2000) (finding that
the domain name <gaygames.com> is identical to Complainant's registered
trademark GAY GAMES); see also Pomellato S.p.A v. Tonetti, D2000-0493 (WIPO July 7, 2000) (finding
<pomellato.com> identical to Complainant’s mark because the generic
top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” after the name POMELLATO is not relevant).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(i) has thus been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has not submitted a reply to
Complainant’s allegations, thereby permitting the Panel to conclude that all
reasonable inferences made by Complainant are true and accurate unless there is
evidence that is clearly contradictory.
Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v.
webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (failure
to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of
Complainant to be deemed true); Desotec N.V. v. Jacobi Carbons AB, D2000-1398
(WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding that failing to respond allows a presumption that
Complainant’s allegations are true unless clearly contradicted by the
evidence). There is no evidence that
contradicts the allegations of Complainant.
Complainant has presented evidence that substantiates its claim that
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in the contested domain name.
Respondent attempted to auction off the
disputed domain name registration for a substantial profit, thereby benefiting
from Complainant’s extremely well-known mark. There is no evidence of rights or
legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or 4(c)(iii) when Respondent
attempts to turn a profit and has shown no bona fide offering of goods or
services, and fails to make a fair or noncommercial use of the domain name. See
J. Paul Getty Trust v. Domain 4 Sale
& Co., FA 95262 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 7, 2000) (finding rights or
legitimate interests do not exist when one has made no use of the websites that
are located at the domain names at issue, other than to sell the domain names
for profit); see also Kinko’s Inc.
v. eToll, Inc., FA 94447 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 27, 2000) (finding that
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name where it
appeared that the domain name was registered for ultimate use by Complainant); see
also Cruzeiro Licenciamentos Ltda v.
Sallen, D2000-0715 (WIPO Sept. 6, 2000) (finding that rights or legitimate
interests do not exist when one holds a domain name primarily for the purpose
of marketing it to the owner of a corresponding trademark).
There has been no evidence submitted to
indicate that Respondent has a substantial affiliation with, or is known by the
<tokyodisneyresort.com> domain name. On the other hand, Complainant
has established itself as the sole possessor of all legitimate rights and
interests in the DISNEY and TOKYO DISNEY RESORT marks. The Panel notes that it
would be difficult for Respondent to show that it had rights or legitimate
interests in a domain name containing Complainant’s famous DISNEY mark given
the worldwide recognition of said mark. Since Respondent has not come forward
with a viable alternative for its use of the registered
mark of Complainant, it can be deduced that Respondent has no rights to the
domain name according to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, D2000-0403 (WIPO June 27, 2000) (finding no
rights or legitimate interests where (1) Respondent is not a licensee of
Complainant; (2) Complainant’s prior rights in the domain name precede
Respondent’s registration; (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the domain
name in question); see also Nike,
Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000) (finding no rights
or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to find a person who
may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name containing
Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(ii) has thus been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered
and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Complainant’s
registered TOKYO DISNEY RESORT mark is registered in Japan, Respondent’s place
of domicile. Respondent was placed on constructive notice by virtue of
registration of Complainant’s mark with the Japanese trademark authorities.
Moreover, given the worldwide identification of the DISNEY mark with
Complainant, it can also be assumed that Respondent was aware of the mark, and
therefore had notice. Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name
thereafter, containing Complainant’s mark, is an indication of bad faith
registration. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000)
(finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
EXXON mark given the worldwide prominence of the mark and thus Respondent
registered the domain name in bad faith); see also Yahoo! Inc. v. Ashby,
D2000-0241 (WIPO June 14, 2000) (finding that the fame of the YAHOO! mark
negated any plausible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the
<yahooventures.com> domain name)
Respondent
intentionally attempted to engage in selling the disputed domain name
registration, constituting bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).
Since no use of the domain name occurred, it can be inferred that the primary
motivation for registration was to profit from the domain name registration.
When one intends not to use a domain name, and merely tries to re-sell rights
in the domain name registration for profit, then bad faith results. See Dollar
Rent A Car Sys. Inc. v. Jongho,
FA 95391 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 11, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated
bad faith by registering the domain name with the intent to transfer it to
Complainant for $3,000, an amount in excess of its out of pocket costs); see
also Dynojet Research, Inc. v. Norman,
AF-0316 (eResolution Sept. 26, 2000) (finding that Respondent demonstrated bad
faith when he requested monetary compensation beyond out of pocket costs in
exchange for the registered domain name).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Policy
¶ 4(a)(iii) has thus been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel hereby concludes that the requested
relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ordered that the
domain name <tokyodisneyresort.com>
be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2003
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page