Rightsy — Protect your rights: IP search and flat-fee legal services

Search trademarks

Yamaha Corporation v. Zhoulei

WIPO Case No. D2004-0126

Outcome
Transfer
Domain names
yamaha-hk.com
Complainant
Yamaha Corporation (Japan)
Complainant's counsel
Gevers & Partners S.A.
Respondent
Zhoulei (China)
Panelist
Ilhyung Lee
Registrar
Network Solutions, LLC.
Decided
08 Apr 2004
Response
The respondent did not reply
Language
English

Source: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. Official copy: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0126.html

WIPO Arbitration and

Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL

DECISION

Yamaha Corporation v. Zhoulei

Case No. D2004-0126

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Yamaha Corporation, of Hamamatsu, Shizuoka, Japan, represented by Gevers & Partners S.A., Belgium.

The Respondent is Zhoulei, of Guangzhou, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <yamaha-hk.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 18, 2004. On February 18, 2004, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 19, 2004, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 25, 2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was March 16, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 22, 2004.

The Center appointed Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on March 29, 2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Yamaha Corporation, a Japanese corporation, has a "long history in the field of musical instruments, professional audio products, home audio/video products and computer peripheral products as well as in the field of motor vehicles." The Complainant has registration for trademarks bearing the YAMAHA name in numerous countries throughout the world. The Complainant has also registered through its affiliated entities the domain names <yamaha.com> (on November 1, 1994) and <yamaha-europe.com> (on October 9, 1996).

The Respondent, Zhoulei, whose address of record is in China, registered the

domain name <yamaha-hk.com> on April 8, 2002.

The Respondent has defaulted in this proceeding. Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules allow the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint; paragraph 14(b) permits the Panel to draw appropriate inferences from the failure to submit a response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that: the Respondent’s domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the YAMAHA marks in which the Complainant has rights; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to prevail in this proceeding, the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:

(i) the domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant states that it and its subsidiaries own a number of trademark registrations throughout the world that consist of or feature the term YAMAHA. Such mark is well known, with significant goodwill attached. There is no dispute that the Complainant’s registration and use of the YAMAHA mark, as well the registration of the <yamaha.com> domain name, took place well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name <yamaha-hk.com>. The Complaint has rights in its YAMAHA trademarks.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <yamaha-hk.com> is confusingly

similar to the Complainant’s mark YAMAHA. YAMAHA is a strong mark. The mere

addition of "-hk" (presumably, for Hong Kong) and the generic top

level domain ".com" is not enough to avoid confusion. Given the presence

of the prominent "yamaha" term in the disputed domain name, Internet

users will likely be confused into thinking that the Respondent, the Respondent’s

business, or the Respondent’s website is connected with, sponsored or endorsed

by, the Complainant.

The Panel’s decision in this regard is in accordance with a number of WIPO

decisions. E.g., Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. Evezon Co. Ltd., WIPO

Case No. D2000-0437 (finding that disputed domain name <ikea-korea.com>

is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark IKEA); NIKE, Inc. v. Jaeik

Jung, WIPO Case No. D2000-1471 (finding

that disputed domain name <nike-europe.com> is confusingly similar to

Complainant’s trademark NIKE). The Panel finds that the Complainant has proved

the first element.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may demonstrate rights or

legitimate interests in the domain name by providing evidence of: (i) the Respondent’s

use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods

or services; or (ii) the Respondent being commonly known by the domain name;

or (iii) the Respondent making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the

domain name. The Panel addresses the three possibilities in turn.

The Respondent’s website displays graphics of audio equipment, along with superimposed

text in both Chinese and English, including the phrase, "Complete Series

of YMA Professional Acoustic Equipment". (YMA is presumably the name of

the Respondent’s company.) The Complainant asserts that the products offered

by the Respondent are "a clear imitation of YAMAHA products," and

that it will commence legal action in the Chinese courts. In the case before

the Panel, the use of a domain name that appropriates a well-known trademark

to promote competing or infringing products cannot be considered "a bona

fide offering of goods or services" within the meaning of Paragraph

4(c)(i) of the Policy. See The Chip Merchant, Inc. v. Blue Star Electronics,

d/b/a Memory World, WIPO Case No. D2000-0474.

Moreover, there is no evidence in the case record to suggest that the Respondent

is commonly known by the domain name, or that the Respondent is making a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

Importantly, the circumstances identified in paragraph 4(c) to support rights

or legitimate interests in the domain name are not exhaustive. Nevertheless,

the Panel is at a loss to ascertain any circumstances that would demonstrate

the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in <yamaha-hk.com>. The

second element is also satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that bad faith in the registration

and use of a domain name is shown when the Respondent, by using the domain name,

has "intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet

users to [the Respondent’s] website..., by creating a likelihood of confusion

with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement"

of the Respondent’s website or of products on the website.

In the present case, the Respondent has incorporated into its domain name a

well-known trademark for audio equipment to promote the Respondent’s own similar,

if not infringing, products. Given that the YAMAHA trademarks have recognition

and registrations worldwide, including China, it is difficult to imagine that

the Respondent appropriated the name without knowledge of the Complainant, the

Complainant’s audio products, or the goodwill attached to the YAMAHA mark. The

Panel draws appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default, and finds

in favor of the Complainant. The Complainant has established bad faith in registration

and use of the domain name.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy

and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <yamaha-hk.com>

be transferred to the Complainant.

Ilhyung Lee

Sole Panelist

Dated: April 8, 2004

More cases by this complainant

Open this decision on Rightsy