NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. v. Privat
Claim Number: FA1412001593539


DOMAIN NAME

<nissan.technology>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Privat Eric Heyne of Naters, II, CH
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Auburn Falls
   Registrars: united-domains AG

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.
   Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 5, 2014
   Commencement: December 5, 2014
   Default Date: December 22, 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



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for 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 


The Complainant has secured more than 2,000 registrations for “NISSAN” trademark in about 180 nations and areas. The domain name <nissan.technology> is identical to NISSAN's registered "NISSAN" trademarks since it includes the exact wording of the registered mark. The mark is famous all over the world.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant has not licensed or authorized to the Respondent to use its mark. The Respondent does not have any rights in the name "NISSAN" nor is the Respondent commonly known under that name. known by this name. NISSAN has no affiliation with the Respondent.


[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 Respondent 


Pursuant to 8.2 of the URS procedure, the Complainant's burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence. In the present case, the only evidence presented by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name is redirected to the Complainant's official web site. This is not clearn and convincing evidence of bad faith registration and use. Indeed, pursuant to 5.8.2 of the URS procedure, a site operated solely in tribute to a business could be considred to be fair use. Pursuant to 8.6 of the URS procedure, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence, the Examiner shall deny the relief requested, thereby terminating the URS proceeding without prejudice to the Complainant to proceed with an action in court of competent jurisdiction or under the UDRP. Consequently, the Complaint is dismissed without prejudice.


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.

The Examiner finds as follows:


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

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. nissan.technology

 

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: December 23, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page