Nintendo of America Inc. v. Christian Dahl / Konsolenprofis
Claim Number: FA2006001901915
Complainant is Nintendo of America Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Christian Marcelo of Perkins Coie LLP, United States. Respondent is Christian Dahl / Konsolenprofis (“Respondent”), Hong Kong.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <pokemon-go.store> (‘the Domain Name’), registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Dawn Osborne as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 26, 2020; the Forum received payment on June 26, 2020.
On June 29, 2020, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <pokemon-go.store> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 July 1, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2020 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@pokemon-go.store. Also on July 1, 2020, 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 July 23, 2020 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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
The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows: The Complainant is the owner of the trade marks POKÉMON and POKÉMON GO. POKÉMON has been registered, inter alia, in the USA for video games since 1999 and used since 1996. POKÉMON GO has been registered since 2019.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks in the case of POKÉMON adding "go" and the gTLD ".store" which do not prevent such confusing similarity.
The Respondent does not have rights or legitimate rights in the Domain Name, is not commonly known by it and has not been authorised by the Complainant.
The Domain Name has been pointed to a web site appearing to be an official site of the Complainant selling counterfeit POKÉMON products which does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
The use made of the Domain Name actual knowledge on the part of the Respondent about the Complainant and its rights.
Diverting Internet users to a site selling competing goods using a complainant’s mark in a domain name for commercial gain and, thereby disrupting the Complainant’s business is registration and use in bad faith under ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) of the Policy. Selling illegal counterfeit goods is also bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Complainant is the owner of the trade marks POKÉMON and POKÉMON GO. POKÉMON has been registered, inter alia, in the USA for video games since 1999 and used since 1996. POKÉMON GO has been registered since 2019.
The Domain Name registered in 2018 has been attached to a site that appears to be an official site of the Complainant and is offering competing counterfeit POKÉMON goods.
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 Domain Name consists of the Complainant's POKÉMON mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA for video games since 1999), the word "go", a hyphen and the gTLD ".store".
Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant). The Panel agrees that the addition of the word "go" to the Complainant's POKEMON mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from that trade mark pursuant to the Policy.
The gTLD ".store" does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the POKÉMON mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).
Finally a hyphen does not prevent that domain name being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July , 2003) (The addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4 (a)(i)).
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has not authorised the use of its marks. The Respondent has not answered this Complaint and there is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). The use is commercial and so cannot be noncommercial legitimate fair use.
The web site attached to the Domain Name uses the Complainant's POKEMON and POKEMON GO marks and images of characters from the Complainant’s video games to offer competing products featuring those characters. It does not make it clear that there is no commercial connection between the site attached to the Domain Name and the Complainant and the web site appears official. The Panel finds this use is confusing. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.)
Use of a disputed domain name to sell products that are counterfeit versions of a complainant’s products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization).
As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Name in relation to the Respondent’s site is confusing and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe it is connected to or approved by the Complainant as it offers competing POKÉMON related products using POKÉMON GO as a masthead logo and using characters from the Complainant’s video games giving the impression that the site attached to the Domain Name is official.
The reference to and images of characters from the Complainant’s video games shows that the Respondent has actual knowledge of the Complainant and its business, products and rights.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site or products on it likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).
Use of a domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent’s website and offer counterfeit products can evince bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) (“As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products).
As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iv) and 4 (b)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <pokemon-go.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Dawn Osborne, Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page