Keihin Corporation v. Youli Ltd.
Claim Number: FA0711001106190
Complainant is Keihin Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Sarah
L. Bruno, of Arent Fox PLLC,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <china-keihin.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to
the National Arbitration Forum electronically on
On
On November 14, 2007, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 4, 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@china-keihin.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <china-keihin.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEIHIN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <china-keihin.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <china-keihin.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Keihin Corporation, is one of the world’s
leading automotive systems manufacturers.
Complainant commenced business in 1956 in
Respondent registered the <china-keihin.com>
domain name on
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.
Complainant has presented evidence of numerous trademark
registrations in several jurisdictions, thus sufficiently establishing its
rights in the KEIHIN mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See FIA
Card Servs., Nat’l Ass’n v. Impulse Mktg. Group, Net
OPS, FA 944261 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 18, 2007) (holding that the
complainant’s trademark registrations for the PLATINUM PLUS and WORLD CLASS
PLATINUM PLUS marks, which it held with the USPTO, demonstrated its rights in
the marks pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see
also Miller Brewing Co. v. Miller
Family, FA 104177 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that the <china-keihin.com>
domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s KEIHIN mark
under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain name contains
Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the addition of the geographically
descriptive term “
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant has presented an adequate prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate
interests in the <china-keihin.com> domain name. Thus, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii),
the burden shifts to Respondent to present evidence of rights and legitimate
interests in the disputed domain name.
Despite Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, the Panel
chooses to examine the evidence under the parameters of Policy ¶ 4(c) before reaching
a conclusion as to Respondent’s rights and legitimate interests in the <china-keihin.com>
domain name. See Do The Hustle, LLC v.
Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that, where the
complainant has asserted that the respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests with respect to the domain name, it is incumbent on the respondent to
come forward with concrete evidence rebutting this assertion because this
information is “uniquely within the knowledge and control of the respondent”); see also G.D. Searle v. Martin Mktg., FA 118277 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Respondent’s WHOIS information
lists Respondent as “Youli Ltd.” This information, as well as a lack of
evidence indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the <china-keihin.com>
domain name or authorized to use Complainant’s mark, indicates that Respondent
is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney,
FA 699652 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent
was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS
information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication
that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the
complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name
containing its registered mark); see also
Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys.,
LLC v. Snowden, FA
715089 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the
respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name
where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information,
suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
The evidence shows that Respondent is using the <china-keihin.com>
domain name to sell goods in direct competition with Complainant, as well as
counterfeit versions of Complainant’s own goods. In Gardens Alive, Inc. v. D&S Linx, FA 203126 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 20, 2003), the panel found that the respondent’s use of a
domain name to divert Internet users to a website selling goods and services
similar to the services the complainant offered was not a bona fide offering
of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Hewlett-Packard Co. v.
Inversiones HP Milenium
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s use of the <china-keihin.com>
domain name to direct Internet users to a website displaying goods in direct
competition with Complainant’s constitutes a disruption of Complainant’s
business and qualifies as evidence of bad faith registration and use under
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC
v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Nat.
Arb. Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and
used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to
Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing
website); see also S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum
The Panel finds that Respondent
is attempting to profit from a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s
association with the <china-keihin.com>
domain name and the products displayed on the website that resolves from the
disputed domain name. Such use is
presumably for Respondent’s own commercial benefit, as the disputed domain name
offers products for sale. Accordingly,
the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Dell
Inc. v. Innervision Web Solutions, FA 445601 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2005) (finding evidence of bad
faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was using the
<dellcomputerssuck.com> domain name to divert Internet users to
respondent’s website offering competing computer products and services);
see also Computerized Sec. Sys., Inc. v. Hu, FA 157321 (Nat. Arb.
Forum June 23, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the
<saflock.com> domain name to offer goods competing with the complainant’s
illustrates the respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the domain name,
evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)).
Finally, both the disputed domain name, as well as the
content displayed on the website which resolves from the <china-keihin.com> domain name,
indicate that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark when
registering the disputed domain name. Therefore,
the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Pfizer, Inc. v. Suger, D2002-0187 (WIPO
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <china-keihin.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: December 18, 2007
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum