Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. v. Wisnuwardhana Prasastajati
Claim Number: FA1202001427764
Complainant is Seiko Epson Corporation and Epson America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by David A. Jones of Maschoff Gilmore & Israelsen, Utah, USA. Respondent is Wisnuwardhana Prasastajati (“Respondent”), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <tintenpatronenepson.info>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 1, 2012; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 1, 2012.
On February 2, 2012, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <tintenpatronenepson.info> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 2, 2012, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 22, 2012 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tintenpatronen-epson.info. Also on February 2, 2012, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent which was compliant with the requirements of the Policy and its associated Rules, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 1, 2012, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Terry F. Peppard as sole Panelist in this proceeding.
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" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. 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 a compliant response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
Complainant Epson America, Inc. is a subsidiary of Complainant, Seiko Epson Corporation, which establishes a sufficiently close relationship between them to permit them to act as one Complainant in this matter.
Complainant markets electronics, printers and related goods and services around the world under the EPSON trademark.
Complainant owns registrations for the EPSON trademark, on file with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (including Reg. No. 1,134,004, registered April 29, 1980).
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 21, 2011.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering links to websites offer-ing both Complainant’s products and the products of its commercial competitors.
Respondent’s <tintenpatronenepson.info> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EPSON mark.
Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Respondent is not making either a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the contested domain name or a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain.
Respondent does not have a license to use the EPSON mark, and Respondent is in no way associated with the Complainant or its business.
Respondent is not authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to operate a website that incorporates Complainant’s EPSON mark.
Respondent does not have any rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name <tintenpatronenepson.info>.
Respondent registered and uses the <tintenpatronenepson.info> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent has failed to submit a Response to the Complainant filed in this proceeding which is in compliance with the requirements of the Policy or its associated Rules. However, in an e-mail message addressed to the National Arbitration Forum, Respondent recited as follows:
On this day, I has been cease and desist [sic] all use of the Domain Name. And also, that domain was not in my godaddy account again [sic]. I hope this case can be stopped as soon as possible. And I really apologize for my ignorance.
DISCUSSION
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in the ordinary course, Complainant must prove each of the following to obtain from a Panel an order that a domain name be transferred:
i. the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;
ii. Respondent has no rights or to legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
iii. the same domain name has been registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accord-ance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
Further, Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, where a party fails to comply with requirements laid on by the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from that failure as it considers appropriate.
DECISION
It appears from the record that Respondent does not contest the material alle-gations of the Complaint. It further appears that Respondent does not object to Complainant’s request for the transfer to it of the subject domain name as prayed for in the Complaint, so that the parties have tacitly agreed to the transfer of the domain from Respondent to Complainant without the need for further proceed-ings. In the exceptional circumstances here presented, we conclude that no worthwhile purpose would be served by a rendition of findings otherwise cus-tomary in proceedings of this sort.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tintenpatronenepson.info> domain name be TRANSFERRED forthwith from Respondent to Complainant.
Terry F. Peppard, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2012
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page