Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/t/a Sony
Corporation v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Party
Claim Number: FA0204000109041
PARTIES
Complainant
is Sony Kabushiki Kaisha a/t/a Sony Corporation, Tokyo, JAPAN
(“Complainant”) represented by Robert
B.G. Horowitz, of Cooper &
Dunham LLP. Respondent is John Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Party, Andalusia, PA
(“Respondent”).
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The
domain name at issue is <sonytelevision.com>,
registered with Network Solutions, Inc.
PANEL
The
undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
Sandra
Franklin as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”)
electronically on April 3, 2002; the Forum received a hard copy of the
Complaint on April 8, 2002.
On
April 5, 2002, Network Solutions, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that
the domain name <sonytelevision.com>
is registered with Network Solutions, Inc. and that Respondent is the current
registrant of the name. Network
Solutions, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Network Solutions,
Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name
disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On
April 8, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of April 29,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons
listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing
contacts, and to postmaster@sonytelevision.com by e-mail.
Having
received no Response from Respondent, using the same contact details and
methods as were used for the Commencement Notification, the Forum transmitted
to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On
May 10, 2002, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by
a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra Franklin 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.” 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant
requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A.
Complainant
Respondent’s
domain name <sonytelevision.com> is identical or confusingly
similar to Complainant’s SONY trademark and is likely to cause confusion.
Respondent
has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The
disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
B.
Respondent
Respondent
did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant is a world leader in the
field of consumer electronics and is also involved in a wide range of
businesses including entertainment, finance, life insurance, chemicals, and
many others, all in connection with the SONY trademark. The word SONY has no meaning in any language
and has been registered as a trademark by Complainant in 193 countries
including the United States and Japan.
Complainant has been in business for over
45 years and has annual sales in excess of $63 billion. Complainant employs over 189,000 people
worldwide and is publicly held, with shares listed on sixteen stock exchanges,
including New York, Tokyo, and London.
Each year, Complainant spends millions of
dollars promoting its SONY mark; in 2001, it spent over $100 million
advertising SONY-branded products and services around the globe. Complainant hosts websites at
<sony.com> and <sonystyle.com>.
In 1990, SONY was recognized as the world’s most admired brand and the
fourth best-known brand.
The SONY mark is registered on the
Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office as Reg. No.
1,622,127.
Respondent registered the disputed domain
name on January 2, 1999 and has used the name to redirect users to
<amatuervideos.nl>, a site displaying pornographic images. Complainant has submitted evidence that
Respondent has a history of registering domain names that infringe on famous
marks.
DISCUSSION
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.”
In view
of Respondent's failure to submit a Response, the Panel shall decide this
administrative proceeding on the basis of the Complainant's undisputed
representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and
draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of
the Rules.
Paragraph
4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly
similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has established its rights in
the SONY mark through registration with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
and continuous subsequent use.
The disputed domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s SONY mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety
and adds the word “television,” which reflects one of Complainant’s popular
products. The addition of a word that
describes Complainant’s business does not distinguish its mark from a domain
name. Instead, likelihood of confusion
is increased through use of the related word.
See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownwell, AF-0298 (eResolution Sept. 22, 2000) (finding confusing
similarity where the Respondent’s domain name combines the Complainant’s mark
with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the Complainant’s
business); see also Sony
Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, D2000-1409 (WIPO Dec. 9, 2000) (finding that
“[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix
‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in
each case, namely the trademark SONY”); see also Brown
& Bigelow, Inc. v. Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5,
2001) (finding that the <hoylecasino.net> domain name is confusingly
similar to Complainant’s HOYLE mark, and that the addition of “casino,” a
generic word describing the type of business in which Complainant is engaged,
does not take the disputed domain name out of the realm of confusing
similarity).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has
been satisfied.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant has demonstrated its rights
to and interests in the SONY mark.
Because Respondent has not submitted a Response in this matter, the
Panel may presume it has no such rights or interests in respect of the disputed
domain name. See Pavillion Agency, Inc. v. Greenhouse Agency
Ltd., D2000-1221 (WIPO Dec. 4, 2000) (finding that Respondents’ failure to
respond can be construed as an admission that they have no legitimate interest
in the domain names).
Given the popularity and notoriety of
Complainant’s SONY mark, it seems highly unlikely that Respondent could have
any rights or interests in a domain name incorporating the word SONY. See Nike, Inc. v. B. B. de Boer, D2000-1397 (WIPO Dec. 21, 2000)
(finding no rights or legitimate interests where one “would be hard pressed to
find a person who may show a right or legitimate interest” in a domain name
containing Complainant's distinct and famous NIKE trademark); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, supra
(finding that SONY is “instantly recognizable as one of the most famous
trademarks in the world”).
Respondent has used the disputed domain
name to redirect Internet users to a pornographic website, by taking advantage
of and potentially tarnishing the goodwill built up in Complainant’s
marks. Such use is not a bona fide
offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See MatchNet plc v. MAC Trading, D2000-0205 (WIPO May 11, 2000)
(finding that it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services to use a
domain name for commercial gain by attracting Internet users to third party
sites offering sexually explicit and pornographic material, where such use is
calculated to mislead consumers and tarnish the Complainant’s mark); see
also Brown & Bigelow, Inc. v.
Rodela, FA 96466 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 5, 2001) (finding that infringing on
another's well-known mark to provide a link to a pornographic site is not a
legitimate or fair use).
Respondent is not commonly known by
“sonytelevision” or <sonytelevision.com>
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii); Respondent is only known to this Panel as John
Zuccarini d/b/a Cupcake Party. See Gallup Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA
96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that Respondent does not have
rights in a domain name when Respondent is not known by the mark); see also Great S.
Wood Pres., Inc. v. TFA Assocs.,
FA 95169 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 5, 2000) (finding that Respondent was not
commonly known by the domain name <greatsouthernwood.com> where
Respondent linked the domain name to <bestoftheweb.com>).
The Panel finds that Respondent has no
rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and,
thus, Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Respondent registered and used <sonytelevision.com>, a domain
name that wholly incorporates Complainant’s SONY mark, in order to trade on
Complainant’s goodwill and create confusion as the source or sponsorship of its
website. Such behavior demonstrates bad
faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
See Am. Online, Inc. v.
Tencent Comm. Corp., FA 93668 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2000) (finding bad
faith where Respondent registered and used an infringing domain name to attract
users to a website sponsored by Respondent); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil, supra
(finding bad faith registration and use where it is “inconceivable that the
respondent could make any active use of the disputed domain names without
creating a false impression of association with the Complainant”).
Given the fame and distinctiveness of
Complainant’s mark, Respondent must have been aware of the mark and
Complainant’s rights therein when it registered the disputed domain name. See Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Fisher, D2000-1412 (WIPO Dec. 18. 2000)
(finding that Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s
EXXON mark given the world-wide prominence of the mark). Respondent’s registration of the infringing
domain name, despite such knowledge, further demonstrates bad faith under the
Policy. See Samsonite Corp. v. Colony Holding, FA 94313 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr.
17, 2000) (finding that evidence of bad faith includes actual or constructive
knowledge of a commonly known mark at the time of registration); see also
Entrepreneur Media, Inc. v. Smith, 279 F.3d 1135, 1148 (9th Cir. Feb.
11, 2002) (finding that, "[w]here an alleged infringer chooses a mark he
knows to be similar to another, one can infer an intent to confuse"); see
also Victoria's Secret v. Hardin,
FA 96694 (Nat Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001) (finding that, in light of the
notoriety of Complainants' famous marks, Respondent had actual or constructive
knowledge of the BODY BY VICTORIA marks at the time she registered the disputed
domain name and such knowledge constituted bad faith).
Complainant has provided evidence that
Respondent has a history of registering infringing domain names that
incorporate the trademarks and service marks of others. Because Respondent has not refuted this
claim, the Panel may accept the assertion as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,
D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is
appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint”). Respondent’s actions suggest a pattern of
behavior calculated to prevent trademark holders from registering domain names
reflecting their marks, in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Armstrong Holdings, Inc. v. JAZ Assoc., FA 95234 (Nat. Arb. Forum
Aug. 17, 2000) (finding that the Respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) by
registering multiple domain names which infringe upon others’ famous and
registered trademarks); see also Budget
Rent a Car Corp. v. Cupcake City, D2000-1020 (WIPO Oct. 19, 2000) (finding
a pattern of conduct in registering domain names that infringe upon others’
marks where the Respondent has registered over 1,300 domain names).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii)
has been satisfied.
DECISION
Having established all three elements
required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that the requested relief
should be hereby granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <sonytelevision.com>
domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complaint.
Sandra Franklin, Panelist
Dated:
May 23, 2002
Click Here to
return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click
Here to return to our Home Page