NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION


NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. v. Identity Protect Limited et al.
Claim Number: FA1412001593523


DOMAIN NAME

<nissan.repair>


PARTIES


   Complainant: NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. of Yokohama-shi, Japan
  

   Respondent: none s domains of UK, United Kingdom
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Lone Sunset, LLC
   Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited

EXAMINER


   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 Examiner in this proceeding.
   Neil Anthony Brown, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 4, 2014
   Commencement: December 5, 2014
   Response Date: December 5, 2014
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: No domain names are dismissed from the Complaint.
      Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

   Findings of Fact: Complainant is Nissan Motor Co.Ltd a global leading company of manufacturing, sales and related business of automotive products and marine equipment.Complaint has many international registrations of the NISSAN trademark and contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the NISSAN trademark, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.Complainant has adduced evidence to support each of those contentions.

  

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is clear that Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark NISSAN for which Complainant holds a valid national registration that is in current use. In response to the allegations made under URS 1.2.6.1 , Respondent has stated that "The domain is not required as this site is no longer active. Will transfer domain to complaining party as required."


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is clear that Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent does not have a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Complainant has never licensed nor authorised Respondent to use the <nissan.repair> domain name, that Respondent had no rights in the name NISSAN, that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and that NISSAN has no affiliation with Respondent . In response to the allegations made under URS 1.2.6.2 , Respondent has stated that "The domain is not required as this site is no longer active. Will transfer domain to complaining party as required."


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant 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 that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site 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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is clear that Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence: 1. It is inconceivable that the Respondent could have independently adopted this identical or confusingly similar name on its own. The Respondent rather must have been notified through TMCH system of NISSAN's trademark rights when registering <nissan.repair>, which is famous all over the world. 2.The Respondent has made no use of the domain in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services in any commerce. The Respondent has not sold any goods or services under this name "NISSAN". Neither is the Respondent making any legitimate non-commercial nor fair use of this domain name. In fact, the possible website related to the domain name at issue doesn't exist, or it has been parked by the Registrar with a message " If you are interested in any of the available domains pointing to this website please email info@dohmains.co.uk ". In response to the allegations made under URS 1.2.6.3 , Respondent has stated that "The domain is not required as this site is no longer active. Will transfer domain to complaining party as required."


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

In response to the allegations made under in the Complaint , Respondent has not adduced any evidence or made any submissions in opposition to the allegations, but has stated that "The domain is not required as this site is no longer active. Will transfer domain to complaining party as required."


DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

  1. nissan.repair

 


Neil Anthony Brown
Examiner
Dated: December 8, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page