Nintendo of America Inc. v. Jinlong Wu
Claim Number: FA2203001988517
Complainant is Nintendo of America Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christian Marcelo of Perkins Coie LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Jinlong Wu (“Respondent”), Cuba.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <guidepokemon.com>, registered with Name.com, 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.
Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 16, 2022; the Forum received payment on March 16, 2022.
On March 17, 2022, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <guidepokemon.com> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, 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 March 22, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 11, 2022 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@guidepokemon.com. Also on March 22, 2022, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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 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
Complainant contends as follows:
Complainant markets and distributes video game systems, software, and related products.
Complainant has rights in the POKEMON mark through its national registration of such mark.
Respondent’s <guidepokemon.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s POKEMON mark. Respondent incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds the generic terms “guide” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <guidepokemon.com> domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name nor did Complainant authorize Respondent to use the POKEMON. Respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial of fair use. Instead, Respondent’s domain name addresses a website offering unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered and used the <guidepokemon.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent offers illegal downloads and unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the POKEMON mark due to the longstanding use and fame of the mark in commerce.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has rights in POKEMON.
Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity.
Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the POKEMON trademark.
Respondent’s uses the <guidepokemon.com> domain name to address a website offering POKEMON products.
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.
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(f), 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 set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar or identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
Complainant shows that it has USPTO registrations for its POKEMON trademark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), a national trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant’s rights in a mark. See Nintendo of America Inc. v. lin amy, FA 1818485 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) ("Complainant’s ownership a USPTO trademark registration for the NINTENDO mark evidences Complainant’s rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Joyce Cheadle, FA 1819065 (Forum Dec. 28, 2018) (finding that Complainant’s registration of the BROOKS mark with the USPTO sufficiently conferred its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Respondent’s <guidepokemon.com> domain name contains Complainant’s POKEMON trademark prefixed with the suggestive term “guide” with all followed by the top-level domain name “.com.” The differences between Respondent’s domain name and Complainant’s trademark are insufficient to distinguish the <guidepokemon.com>domain name from Complainant’s POKEMON trademark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s <guidepokemon.com> domain name is confusingly similar to POKEMON. See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (holding that the addition of both the word “advisors” and the gTLD “.com” did not sufficiently alter the disputed domain name to negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”).
Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”).
The WHOIS information for <guidepokemon.com> identifies the domain name’s registrant as “Jinlong Wu” and the record before the Panel contains no evidence showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <guidepokemon.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <guidepokemon.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Radio Flyer Inc. v. er nong wu, FA 2011001919893 (Forum Dec. 16, 2020) (“Here, the WHOIS information lists “er nong wu” as the registrant and no information suggests Complainant has authorized Respondent to use the RADIO FLYER mark in any way. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”)
Respondent uses <guidepokemon.com> to address a website offering infringing copies of Complainant’s copyrighted works. Respondent’s use the of the at-issue domain name in this manner indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA 1794058 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website which purported to sell chewing gum-removal equipment which was either counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, or goods which competed directly with Complainant’s chewing gum-removal equipment business, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)), see also Google Inc. v. Alex Dori, FA 1623672 (Forum July 13, 2015) (“Given that Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer illegal content for download and streaming, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.”).
Given the forgoing, Complainant satisfies its initial burden and shows Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. As discussed below without limitation, bad faith circumstances are present from which the Panel concludes that Respondent acted in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As mentioned above regarding rights or legitimate interests, Respondent uses its confusingly similar <guidepokemon.com> domain name to offer unauthorized POKEMON branded products. Using the confusingly similar domain name in such a manner is disruptive to Complainant’s business and falsely implies that there is a sanctioned relationship between Complainant and Respondent when there is no such relationship. Respondent’s use of the domain name demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (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, Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) through the respondent’s registration and use of the infringing domain name to reference the complainant’s products and offer competitive and/or counterfeit products).
Moreover, Respondent registered <guidepokemon.com> knowing that Complainant had trademark rights in POKEMON and thus in <guidepokemon.com>. Respondent’s actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in <guidepokemon.com> is evident from the notoriety of Complainant’s trademark as well as from Respondent offering of POKEMON products for download on the <guidepokemon.com> website. Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant's POKEMON trademark further indicates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed the disputed domain name”).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <guidepokemon.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist
Dated: April 15, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page