NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. v. Nicholas Olsen / Web Speak
Claim Number: FA1412001593537
Complainant: NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. of Yokohama-shi, Japan.
Respondent: Nicholas Olsen of Tucson, Arizona, US.
Web Speak of tucson, United States of America.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: REVIEWS Registry
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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 Examiner in this proceeding.
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 5, 2014
Commencement: December 8, 2014
Response Date: December 22, 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.
Procedural Findings:
Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.
Findings of Fact: NISSAN MOTOR CO. LTD, the Complainant, claimed that it is a global leading company of manufacturing, sales and related business of automotive products and marine equipment. The Complainant has claimed that it has; multiple international registrations of the “INFINITI” trademark, the disputed domain name is identical with the registered “INFINITI” trademark, the Respondent does not have a license for usage of the “INFINITI” trademark, the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest over the domain name and that the Respondent has registered the domain name after the launch of the general available period, the Respondent has made no use of the domain in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services in any commerce, the Respondent has not sold any goods or services under this name “INFINITI” neither is the Respondent making any legitimate noncommercial nor fair use of the disputed domain. The Complainant also claimed that, the website related to the disputed domain has been used for advertisement with listing ads and that there is a message as “Interested in this domain name?” at the upper left side of the website related to this domain.
The Respondent replied that; the disputed domain name is generic or descriptive and they are making fair use of it. The Respondent stated that their company is in the business of online development of small business and auto sectors, that their intention of use for the domain name is open community user review website for reviewing and discussing Infiniti automobiles. The Respondent stated that the website related to the dispute will be used for public benefit and it will include post moderated user generated review content and it will not be in affiliation with or it will not infringe the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent also stated that the disputed domain name was not registered in bad faith and the domain name is to be used for a consumer based community product review website. No attempt to sell the domain name to the Complainant has been made and there was no attempt to deprive the Complainant from the domain.
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.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “INFINITI” for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration before Japan Patent Office with the number 4910369 and that is in current use.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “INFINITI” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary and nor any evidence that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “INFINITI” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3]
The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the
purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name
registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service
mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in
excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name;
or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrants’ web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Despite the fact that the Respondent stated that the website related to the dispute will be used for public benefit and it will include post moderated user generated review content and it will not be in affiliation with or it will not infringe the Complainant’s trademark and that their intention is not to sell the domain name to the Complainant or deprive the Complainant from the domain, the Respondent did not submit sufficient evidence for such usage of the domain name. The evidence submitted by the Complainant showed that the website related to the disputed domain has been used for advertisement with listing ads and that there is a message as “Interested in this domain name?” at the upper left side of the website related to this domain. In this respect the domain name has been passively held by the respondent. Given the notoriety of Complainant and the content of the response, Respondent was clearly well aware of Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name.
The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
The Examiner finds as follows:
1.
The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
The complaint submitted was not found to be filed in abuse nor did it contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the 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:
1. infiniti.reviews
Ahmet Akguloglu, Examiner
Dated: December 28, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page