Fuji Photo Film Co., Ltd. V. RGnames
Claim Number: FA0204000112598
PARTIES
Complainant
is Fuji Photo Film, Co. Ltd.,
Kanagawa, JAPAN (“Complainant”) represented by Abigail Rubinstein, of Baker
Botts L.L.P. Respondent is RGnames, Pohang-city, KOREA
(“Respondent”) represented by Dongil
Song.
The
domain name at issue is <fuji.biz>,
registered with Wooho T&C Co. d/b/a
RGnames.
The
undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to
the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this
proceeding.
John
J. Upchurch as Panelist.
Complainant
has standing to file a Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (“STOP”) Complaint,
as it timely filed the required Intellectual Property (IP) Claim Form with the
Registry Operator, NeuLevel. As an IP
Claimant, Complainant timely noted its intent to file a STOP Complaint against
Respondent with the Registry Operator, NeuLevel and with the National
Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”).
Complainant
submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 26, 2002; the Forum
received a hard copy of the Complaint on April 27, 2002.
On
May 1, 2002, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of May 21,
2002 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was
transmitted to Respondent in compliance with paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for
the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the “STOP Rules”).
A
timely Response was received and determined to be complete on May 20, 2002.
An
Additional Submission was received from Complainant. The Additional Submission was determined to be late in accordance
with STOP Supplemental Rule #7.
However, the Panelist decided to consider the Additional Submission as
the delay was insubstantial and nonprejudicial.
On May 30, 2002, pursuant to STOP Rule 6(b), the Forum
appointed John J. Upchurch as
the single Panelist.
Transfer
of the domain name from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
1. The <fuji.biz> domain name
is identical to Complainant’s FUJI trademark.
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate
interests in the <fuji.biz> domain name.
3. Respondent registered the <fuji.biz>
domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
1. Fuji is a generic name, and is the name
of a Japanese city as well as a variety of apple.
2. Respondent has legitimate interests in the <fuji.biz>
domain name.
3. Respondent did not register the domain
name <fuji.biz> in bad faith.
C. Additional Submission (Complainant)
1. Respondent failed to establish it had
rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name <fuji.biz>.
2.
Respondent
did not rebut the presumption that the registration was in bad faith, and
admits to the practice of registering numerous domain names that it has no
rights or legitimate interests in.
Complainant is one of the world’s leading
providers of photographic, imaging and information equipment, products and
services. Since at least as early as
1953, Complainant has used the mark FUJI in connection with its goods and
services. These include film, cameras,
videotapes and audiotapes for consumers and professionals; chemical-free and
environmentally- friendly digital photographic color printers, photographic
paper, minilabs, digital imaging products (including digital cameras for
commercial and consumer use), photofinishing services, computer and optical
disks, data tapes and cartridges, computer accessories, microfilm, motion
picture film, a complete range of products for the graphic arts industry, and
many more technologically advanced products and services. Complainant uses the name and mark FUJI and
variants thereof, to identify and distinguish its high-quality photographic,
imaging and information equipment, products and services from those of
others. Complainant vigorously protects
the valuable goodwill in its name and mark FUJI and has registered its mark in
practically every nation around the world, including South Korea. Complainant
received its first registration in South Korea in 1973.
Respondent registered the domain name <fuji.biz>
on March 27, 2002.
Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP 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 STOP Policy requires that the Complainant must prove each of the
following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be
transferred:
(1)
the domain name is identical 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 or is being used in bad faith.
Due
to the common authority of the ICANN policy governing both the Uniform Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and these STOP proceedings, the Panel
will exercise its discretion to rely on relevant UDRP precedent where
applicable.
Under
the STOP proceedings, a STOP Complaint may only be filed when the domain name
in dispute is identical to a trademark or service mark for which a Complainant
has registered an Intellectual Property (IP) claim form. Therefore, every STOP proceeding necessarily
involves a disputed domain name that is identical to a trademark or service
mark in which a Complainant asserts rights.
The existence of the “.biz” generic top-level domain (gTLD) in the
disputed domain name is not a factor for purposes of determining that a
disputed domain name is not identical to the mark in which the Complainant
asserts rights.
There
is no issue that the domain name <fuji.biz> is identical to the
trademark FUJI, the trademark rights to which belong to Complainant.
Respondent cannot establish any of the 3
requirements under STOP policy 4(c) and therefore cannot establish any right or
legitimate interest to the domain name <fuji.biz>. Although Respondent asserted that it
planned an internet business including webhosting and email services before
receiving notice of commencement of this administrative proceeding, Respondent
has failed to establish proof of such assertions. Therefore, Respondent has failed to establish its use, or
demonstrate preparations to use, the <fuji.biz> site in connection
with a bona fide offering of goods or services. (STOP Policy 4(c)(ii) ; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Bernstein, FA
102962 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 27, 2002) (Finding that “self-serving unsupported
allegations alone are insufficient to establish rights or legitimate
interests.”)
Therefore, Respondent has no right or
legitimate interest to the domain name <fuji.biz>.
Complainant is one of the world’s leading
providers of photographic and imaging goods and services. It’s FUJI mark has been used since 1953, and
is registered in practically every nation around the world, and South Korea
since 1973. It is widely advertised
with $360 million annual advertising budget.
Therefore, at the time Respondent registered the domain name
<fuji.biz>, Respondent knew or should have known that the FUJI
trademark belonged to Complainant or its affiliates. In such case, the registration of the domain name <fuji.biz>
will be considered bad faith. See Victoria’s
Secret v. Hardin, FA 96694 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 31, 2001).
DECISION
Accordingly, it is ordered that the
domain name <fuji.biz> be transferred from Respondent to
Complainant.
John J.
Upchurch, Panelist
Dated: June 11, 2002
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page