Sony Corporation v. ISAAC FONG
Claim Number: FA1312001532384
Complainant is Sony Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Gina M. McCreadie of Nixon Peabody LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is ISAAC FONG (“Respondent”), Singapore.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <sonycorporation.net>, registered with eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 2, 2013; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on December 3, 2013.
On December 4, 2013, eNom, Inc. confirmed by email to the National Arbitration Forum that the <sonycorporation.net> domain name is registered with eNom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, Inc. 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 December 4, 2013, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 24, 2013 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sonycorporation.net. Also on December 4, 2013, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.
Email correspondence was received from Respondent on December 9, 2013, stating that Respondent did not contest the Complaint and offering to relinquish the disputed domain name.
Having received no formal response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 2, 2014, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
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 formal response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is an internationally known developer of electronic products and services for consumer and professional markets, motion pictures, music, and financial services. Complainant’s annual sales for fiscal year 2013 were approximately $72 billion. Complainant owns hundreds of registrations for the SONY mark in countries throughout the world.
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <sonycorporation.net>, is confusingly similar to its SONY mark, in that it combines the mark with the generic term “corporation” and the generic top-level domain “.net”. Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant states in support thereof that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, and has not been authorized to use Complainant’s mark. Complainant further asserts that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services using the domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name, and is not commonly known by the domain name.
Finally, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith. Complainant asserts that given the worldwide fame of its mark and reputation, Respondent’s knowledge of the mark can reasonably be inferred, and that Respondent’s withholding of its true identity prior to service of the Complaint provides further evidence of bad faith intent.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.
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."
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.
Although the parties have not informed the Panel of a formal settlement pursuant to paragraph 17 of the Rules, there does not appear to be any meaningful dispute between them, and Respondent has consented to the relief requested by Complainant. Furthermore, the Panel is unaware of any extenuating circumstances that would militate against the approach requested by Respondent. See, e.g., Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. Muscari Holding Ltd., FA 1346463 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 8, 2010) (holding that specific findings are appropriate in case involving registrant of numerous domain names used for marketing goods and services or as generic search terms).
The Panel therefore finds it appropriate to order that the domain name be transferred to Complainant as requested, and declines to engage in a specific analysis of the elements set forth in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Having considered the elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sonycorporation.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: January 2, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page