Mitsubishi Corporation v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.

Mitsubishi Corporation v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1408001576021

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for 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

The Complainant demonstrated that he is famous and global enterprise which operates throughout the world in various fields (industrial finance, energy, metals, machinery, chemicals, foods, and environmental business). The Complainant demonstrated that he holds the Japan trademark ‘MITSHUBISHI‘ N° 4319478, registered in 1999. The Respondent has not proven otherwise.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant demonstrated that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name <MITSUBISHI.REVIEWS>. The Respondent has registered the domain name without any authorization from the Complainant who is the legitimate holder of the trademark. The Respondent has no affiliation with the Complainant. The domain name <MITSUBISHI.REVIEWS> has been parked to a web-site which is displaying commercial advertisement in relation to a web-hosting and domain names selling services. The Respondent has not proven otherwise.

[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 Registrant’s 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

The Respondent is not known by the domain name and there is no evidence that he is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Furthermore, it is obvious that the Respondent misuses the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to attract internet users who are presumably looking for official sites of Complainant. Also, the Respondent offers the domain name for the sale with the active link: ‘Learn how you can get this domain‘. The Respondent has likely registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling. Moreover, the domain name was registered with WHOIS privacy service (Domains By Proxy, LLC). Although use of privacy or proxy registration service is not in and of itself an indication of bad faith, the manner in which such service is used can in certain circumstances constitute a factor indicating bad faith. After disclosing Respondent‘s identity, in his email from 28 August 2014 he admits that he would like to cancel the registration and is willing to suspend the domain name. Given the above mentioned evidences, the use of a proxy registration service to avoid disclosing the name of the real party is also consistent with an inference of bad faith in registering and using the domain name. Therefore, the Respondent has registered and used the domain name <MITSUBISHI.REVIEWS> in bad faith and the Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

mitsubishi.reviews

	Complainant Submitted: August 21, 2014
	Commencement: August 21, 2014
	Default Date: September 5, 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").

	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.
	Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner

	Respondent: Zachary Childers of Kennesaw, GA, USA

	Registries: REVIEWS Registry
	Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC