Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd v. ST OKLIYS

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd v. ST OKLIYS

Case No. D2007-0159

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd, Taiwan, Province of China,

represented by Legal & IPR Department at Giga-Byte Technology Co. Ltd.

The Respondent is ST OKLIYS, New York, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com> is registered with eNom.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the

¡°Center¡±) on February 6, 2007. On February 8, 2007, the Center transmitted by

email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain

name at issue. On February 8, 2007, eNom 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. On February 15, 2007, 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

15, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response

was March 7, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly,

the Center notified the Respondent¡¯s default on March 8, 2007.

The Center appointed Susanna H.S. Leong as the sole panelist in this matter

on March 26, 2007. 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 was established in 1986 in Taiwan and it is in the business

of manufacturing IT products such as motherboards, graphic cards and other computer

hardware. In recent years, the Complainant has expanded its business to include

LCD devices, notebooks, power supply and mobile phones.

The Chinese name of the Complainant is ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¹É·ÝÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾. In the Chinese language

community, the Complainant is known as ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and ¡°¼¼¼Î¡±. The Complainant has

registered numerous subsidiaries all over the world including Ningbo Giga-Byte

Technology Ltd (Äþ²¨¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾) and Dongguan Giga-Byte Electronic Ltd (¶«Ý¸¼¼¼Îµç×ÓÓÐÏÞ¹«Ë¾).

The Complainant has about 4,500 employees in China and about 1,800 employees

worldwide.

The Complainant also owns several registered Chinese character trademarks ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼

and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY in Taiwan, Province of China, and Hong Kong, SAR

of China. The trademarks ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY have been used in

Taiwan since the Complainant was founded in 1986. The ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ trademark was registered

in Taiwan in 2002 and in Hong Kong in 2003 whilst the ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY

trademark was registered in Taiwan in 2002.

The supporting material provided also indicates that the trademark ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY has been used in prominent ways on the Complainant¡¯s IT products

in China since 1996 including packaging; magazines, newspapers and web banners

advertisements; trade fairs and IT promotional events; online tournaments; billboards

and light boards; Internet IT product reviews; and resellers and distributors.

The Complainant has registered more than 140 domain names in the world including

<¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.cn>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.Öйú>, <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.ÍøÂç>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.¹«Ë¾>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.tw>;

<¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.cc>; <¼¼¼Î.cc> and internet keywords such as ¡°¼¼¼Î¡±; ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±; ¡°¼¼¼ÎÖ÷°å¡±

and ¡°¼¼¼ÎÏÔ¿¨¡±. The aforementioned domain names and Internet keywords are connected

to the websites ¡°www.gigabyte.com.cn¡± or ¡°www.gigabyte.com.tw¡±.

5. Parties¡¯ Contentions

A. Complainant

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant contends that based on the evidence adduced before the Panel,

the Complainant has rights or legitimate interests, whether registered and unregistered

rights, in the trademarks ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡± and that these

trademarks are both well-known in the Chinese language community.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com> except

for the generic top-level domain designation ¡°.com¡± is identical to the Complainant¡¯s

trademark ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±. The ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡± trademark consists of two parts:

¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and ¡°GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡±. The Complainant contends that ¡°TECHNOLOGY¡±

is the translation of ¡°¿Æ¼¼¡± while ¡°¼¼¼Î¡± is not the translation of ¡°GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡±

but is the commonly accepted transliteration of the Complainant¡¯s company name

¡°GIGA-BYTE¡± in China. This fact is supported by the fact that numerous websites

refer to the Complainant as ¡°¼¼¼Î¡± or ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±. The Complainant contends that the

Chinese characters ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± are the dominant part of the Complainant¡¯s ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY¡± trademark. The four Chinese characters ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± in the disputed domain

name are identical to the dominant part of the Complainant¡¯s ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY¡± trademark and the Complainant contends that this is the portion

which will attract consumers¡¯ attention. The Complainant contends that neither

the suffix ¡°.com¡± nor the English words ¡°GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡± could distinguish

the domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com> from the Complainant¡¯s trademarks. Thus, the

domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com> is confusingly similar to the trademark ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY¡±.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± is not a generic term in the Chinese language.

The Complainant¡¯s adoption, application and registration of the trademarks ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±

and ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡± precede the Respondent¡¯s registration of the

disputed domain name on April 20, 2006.

The Complainant contends that no other person or legal entity had registered

or used the trademarks or similar trademarks in the form of ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY¡± in the Chinese language countries or regions including China, Taiwan,

Hong Kong SAR of China, Macau SAR of China, Singapore and Malaysia. The Complainant

contends that the Respondent owns no rights in ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±, whether registered or

unregistered rights.

The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± name nor

to include that mark in any domain name. The disputed domain name is now linked

to a third party website ¡°www.baidu.com¡± offering information search services

which are completely unrelated to the disputed domain name. The Complainant

contends that neither the Respondent nor Baidu has any business relationship

with the Complainant. Consequently, the Respondent is not making a legitimate

noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent is ambiguously identified in the

WHOIS record as IDN ST OKLIYS and the few months which the Respondent has linked

its domain name to the Baidu website could not make the Respondent commonly

known by the disputed domain name nor is there any reason to believe that the

Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent by linking the disputed domain

name to the Baidu website has prejudiced the interest of the Complainant¡¯s famous

trademarks and has diverted the public from the Complainant¡¯s websites to Baidu¡¯s

website, driving large volume of Internet traffic as a result of the Complainant¡¯s

famous trademarks ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±. Such use of the disputed domain name is not consistent

with a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy.

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or any

legitimate interest in respect of the domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com>.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used

in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy based on the following

reasons:

(a) The Respondent has taken steps to conceal its true identity and has intentionally

provided false contact information in breach of its registration agreement;

(b) The Complainant¡¯s trademarks have a strong reputation and are widely known,

as evidenced by their substantial use. Thus, it is indisputable that the Respondent

had knowledge of the Complainant and its famous trademarks prior to the registration

of the disputed domain name.

(c) The Respondent¡¯s name is ST Okliys which in the Complainant¡¯s opinion has

nothing to do with ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and the Respondent could choose any domain name related

to its name which would not impinge on the trademark rights of the well-known

marks ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± and ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY¡±. The only conceivable reason for

the Respondent¡¯s choice is that the Respondent consciously wants to take advantage

of the fame of the Complainant¡¯s well- known trademarks by creating a likelihood

of confusion, diverting Internet users to the Respondents¡¯ website or a third-party¡¯s

website.

(d) The Respondent by using the domain name has intentionally attempted to attract

for commercial gain, Internet users to a third party Baidu¡¯s website by creating

a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant¡¯s trademarks as to the source,

sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the third party Baidu¡¯s website.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant¡¯s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this

proceeding and obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant

must establish that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

1. the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service

mark in which the Complainant has rights;

2. the 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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy clearly states that the burden of proof lies with

the Complainant to establish that all these three elements are satisfied in

this proceeding.

Furthermore, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide

the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in

accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that

it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules,

if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with

any provision of, or requirement under the Rules of any request from the Panel,

the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom, as it deems appropriate.

On the basis of the evidence introduced by the Complainant and in particular

with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs

4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has produced substantial evidence to demonstrate that it has

registered trademark rights in the ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY marks

in Taiwan and Hong Kong. The Panel notes also the supporting material provided

by the Complainant indicating extensive usage of the ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY marks by the Complainant in prominent ways on the Complainant¡¯s IT

products in China since at least 1996 including packaging; magazines, newspapers

and web banners advertisements; trade fairs and IT promotional events; online

tournaments; billboards and light boards; Internet IT product reviews; resellers

and distributors. Several panels under the Policy have decided that the Policy

affords protection not only to those having rights in registered trademarks

but also to those having common law rights in their trade or service marks.

See Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. Steven S Lalwani WIPO

Case No. D2000-0014; SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Tariq Masood and Solo

Signs, WIPO Case No. D2000-0131; Cedar

Trade Associates, Inc. v. Greg Ricks, NAF Case No. 93633; and Passion Group

Inc. v. Usearch Inc. AF-0250. The Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded

in establishing rights in the ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY marks for the

purpose of the first element of the Policy.

The Panel also notes that amongst the predominantly Chinese speaking communities

in countries and regions such as China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Singapore

and Malaysia, ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± is apparently used as a transliteration of the Complainant¡¯s

company name GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY LTD with ¡°¼¼¼Î¡± being the transliteration of

¡°GIGA¡± and ¡°¿Æ¼¼¡± referring to ¡°TECHNOLOGY¡±. Even if one accepts that ¡°¼¼¼Î¡± may

suggest a meaning of ¡°excellent or good skills¡± and in this regard, is descriptive

of the word ¡°¿Æ¼¼¡± or ¡°TECHNOLOGY¡±, the Panel is of the view that through extensive

and substantial use of these marks ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY by the

Complainant in the predominantly Chinese speaking countries and regions, these

marks ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY have since acquired a secondary meaning

denoting origins of goods or services from the Complainant.

In assessing whether there is identity or confusing similarity between the

Complainant¡¯s trademark and the disputed domain name, the Panel shall have regard

to the degree of visual, aural or conceptual similarity between them and where

appropriate, evaluate the importance to be attached to these different elements.

The disputed domain name comprises (a) an exact reproduction of the Complainant¡¯s

trademark ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and the Chinese portion of ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY mark and

(b) the suffix ¡°.com¡±. The Chinese characters ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± is the dominant and the

distinctive element of the Complainant¡¯s mark and it has been reproduced in

its entirety in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the four Chinese

characters ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± portion is the most prominent part of the disputed domain

names which will attract consumers¡¯ attention. The Panel finds that the suffix

¡°.com¡± denotes that this domain name is in the generic top level domain and

it is well-established that the addition of such a suffix to a trademark may

be disregarded for the purpose of assessing identity or confusing similarity

under the Policy.

For the above mentioned reasons, the Panel therefore finds that the disputed

domain name <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com> is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark

or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Panel finds for the Complainant on the first part of the test.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights

or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

1. The Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the domain

name or reasons to justify the choice of the word ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡± in the domain name;

2. There is no evidence on the record to show that the Complainant has licensed

or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to apply for

or use any domain name incorporating the trademarks;

3. There is no indication on the record that the Respondent is commonly known

by the disputed domain name and/or is using the domain name in connection with

a bona fide offering of goods or services;

4. The Complainant and its ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY marks enjoy a

considerable reputation with regard to IT products and computer hardware. Consequently,

in the absence of contrary evidence from the Respondent, the ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY marks are not those that traders could legitimately adopt other than

for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with the Complainant.

According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish its rights

or legitimate interests in the domain name, among other circumstances, by showing

any of the following elements:

¡°(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or

demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to

the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have

been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark

or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial 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.¡±

The Panel notes that the Respondent did not respond to the Complainant¡¯s Complaint

and has not provided any evidence of the circumstances of the type specified

in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances giving rise to

a right to or legitimate interest in the domain name.

The Panel finds for the Complainant on the second part of the test.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation,

shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith,

namely:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent 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 the complainant, for

valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent¡¯s documented out-of-pocket

costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the

owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding

domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose

of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent¡¯s website 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 the Respondent¡¯s

website or location or of a product.

The Panel concludes based on the case file that the circumstances referred

to in Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and

upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it

is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed

domain name in bad faith.

Firstly, the Panel finds that the Complainant and its marks ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE

TECHNOLOGY enjoy a considerable reputation with regard to IT products and computer

hardware in the predominantly Chinese speaking countries and regions such as

China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Macau, Singapore and Malaysia. This is evidenced by

the extensive and substantial use of these marks on the Complainant¡¯s products.

The Complainant also has a substantial presence in the Internet as it has registered

and used more than 140 domain names in the world including <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.cn>;

<¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.Öйú>, <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.ÍøÂç>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.¹«Ë¾>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.tw>; <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.cc>;

<¼¼¼Î.cc> and internet keywords such as ¡°¼¼¼Î¡±; ¡°¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼¡±; ¡°¼¼¼ÎÖ÷°å¡± and ¡°¼¼¼ÎÏÔ¿¨¡±.

In this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology,

the reputation of brands and trademarks transcend national borders. Therefore,

the Panel finds that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have

had actual notice of the Complainant¡¯s trademark rights at the time of the registration

of the domain name. Consequently, it would have been pertinent for the Respondent

to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name, failing

which the Panel draws the conclusion that the disputed domain names were registered

in bad faith with intent to create an impression of an association with the

Complainant and its IT products and computer hardware.

The Complainant has also adduced evidence to support that by using confusingly

similar disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to

attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent¡¯s website which

is currently linked to a third party Baidu¡¯s website. Given the considerable

reputation of the Complainant¡¯s ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY marks, the

compelling conclusion is that the Respondent, by choosing to register and use

a domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant¡¯s famous marks,

intended to ride on the goodwill of the Complainant¡¯s marks in an attempt to

exploit, for commercial gain, Internet traffic destined for the Complainant.

Consequently, the Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar domain

name created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant¡¯s ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼ and ¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼

GIGA-BYTE TECHNOLOGY trademarks and this constitutes a misrepresentation to

the public that his website is in one way or the other associated or connected

with the Complainant¡¯s. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal

from the Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct

of the Respondent as far as the website on to which the domain name resolves

are indicative of registration and usage of the disputed domain name in bad

faith.

The Panel accepts the Complainant¡¯s submission that this fact coupled with

all the other evidence proves that the Respondent has registered and used the

disputed domain name in bad faith.

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, <¼¼¼Î¿Æ¼¼.com>

be transferred to the Complainant.

Susanna H.S. Leong

Sole Panelist

Dated: April 9, 2007