NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. v. iDigitalAsset LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1412001593533
Complainant: NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. of Yokohama-shi, Japan.
Respondent: iDigital Asset LLC of Fairfax, Virginia, United States of America.
iDigitalAsset LLC of Fairfax, Virginia, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Pearl Woods, LLC
Registrars: 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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 5, 2014
Commencement: December 5, 2014
Response Date: December 11, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant Nissan Motors Co., Ltd. manufactures and sells automobiles in approximately 140 countries, employing a workforce of over 160,000 people. Complainant owns more than 1900 registrations for the INFINITI trademark in about 170 nations and areas, including Japanese trademark registration number 4910369.
The disputed domain name, infiniti.today, was registered on April 7, 2014. The domain name resolves to a parking page featuring links to INFINITI products and dealers.
URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
3. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has met the required burden of proof on each of the above elements.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the INFINITI trademark. The domain name incorporates, in full, the INFINITI mark. The addition of the descriptive term “today” to the domain name does not dispel the confusing similarity between the mark and the domain name.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant owns valid trademark registrations for the INFINITI mark and that such mark is in use.
It is also clear that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant indicates that it has never licensed nor authorized Respondent to use the infiniti.today domain name or INFINITI trademark and contends that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.
Respondent, in his Response, indicates that the domain name is for personal use only, that his family likes Nissan cars, especially the INFINITI, “the best car ever invent[ed] on Earth,” and the domain name is intended to be used in connection with a site to allow the exchange information with other INFINITI owners.
The evidence, however, indicates that the disputed domain name now resolves to a parking page featuring links to INFINITI-related sites. Thus, Respondent’s current “use” may not be considered a legitimate fan site, which requires, in part, that such site actually be in use and clearly distinctive from any official site.
With respect to the issue of bad faith registration and use, Respondent asserts that he does not intend to harm Complainant’s business through use of the disputed domain name and “will do everything to find the solutions for [Complainant’s] concern.” Nevertheless, as noted by Complainant, “it is inconceivable” that Respondent independently adopted the confusingly similar infiniti.today domain name. According to Complainant, Respondent must have been notified through the Trademark Clearinghouse system of Nissan’s trademark rights.
Further, given that Respondent, presumably, earns income each time an internet user clicks on one of the links found at the infiniti.today site, the Examiner concludes that, by using the domain name, Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to his site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s INFINITI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such sites, within the meaning of paragraph 1.2.6.3 d of the URS system.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration: infiniti.today
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: December 11, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page