Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. naoki mori / personal
Claim Number: FA2204001991532
Complainant is Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. (“Complainant”), represented by ROBIC, LLP, Canada. Respondent is naoki mori / personal (“Respondent”), Japan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <brazzers-tv.online> (“Domain Name”), registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.
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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 7, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 7, 2022. The Complaint was submitted in both Japanese and English.
On April 11, 2022, GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <brazzers-tv.online> domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 April 15, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Japanese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2022 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@brazzers-tv.online. Also on April 15, 2022, the Japanese and English 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 May 12, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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.
The language of the registration agreement for the Domain Name is Japanese. The Complaint is in English and Japanese and Complainant requests that pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the language of the proceeding be English.
Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Japanese language Complaint and Commencement Notification, and, absent a formal Response, determines that the remainder of the proceedings may be conducted in English.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Licensing IP International S.à.r.l., is a provider of adult entertainment. Complainant has rights in the BRAZZERS mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 3,621,514 registered November 28, 2009). Respondent’s <brazzers-tv.online> domain name is virtually identical and confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark because it incorporates the BRAZZERS mark in its entirety and adds a hyphen, the descriptive abbreviation “tv” and the “.online” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no legitimate interests in the <brazzers-tv.online> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the BRAZZERS mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Name resolves a page with various pay-per-click links that advertise competing services. Additionally, the resolving page contains a link advertising the Domain Name as for sale to the general public.
Respondent registered and uses the <brazzers-tv.online> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has offered the Domain Name for sale to the public. Respondent registered the Domain Name in order to disrupt Complainant’s business and divert customers for commercial gain. Finally, Respondent registered the Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the BRAZZERS mark given the mark’s notoriety and use to which the Domain Name has been put.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. On April 22, 2022, Respondent sent an e-mail to the Forum providing the Forum with the Domain Name’s authentication code. No other relevant statements were made in that e-mail. It is unclear whether the authentication code is genuine or reflects a genuine consent to a transfer of the Domain Name. In the absence of a clear statement of consent to transfer it is not appropriate to issue an order for relief without being satisfied that the elements of the Policy are satisfied.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the BRAZZERS mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRAZZERS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.
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”).
Complainant asserts rights in the BRAZZERS mark through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (Reg. No. 3,621,514 registered November 28, 2009). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).
The Panel finds that the <brazzers-tv.online> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRAZZERS mark as it wholly incorporates the BRAZZERS mark, adding the descriptive term (and hyphen) “-tv” and the “.online” gTLD. These changes are insufficient to distinguish the Domain Name from the BRAZZERS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”); see also ADP, LLC. v. Ella Magal, FA 1773958 (Forum Aug. 2, 2017) (“Respondent’s <workforce-now.com> domain name appropriates the dominant portion of Complainant’s ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark and adds a hyphen and the gTLD “.com.” These changes do not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain name from the ADP WORKFORCE NOW mark.”); see also Gardline Surveys Ltd. v. Domain Fin. Ltd., FA 153545 (Forum May 27, 2003) (“The addition of a top-level domain is irrelevant when establishing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar, because top-level domains are a required element of every domain name”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BRAZZERS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “naoki mori / personal” as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name presently resolves to a parking page featuring pay-per-click advertisements, including advertisements for adult services that at least relate to the Complainant’s adult video services and are unconnected to any descriptive meaning of the Domain Name. This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent had failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name (January 13, 2022), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s BRAZZERS mark, which had been in use for over 13 years at the time. It would be unlikely for a party to acquire a domain name that wholly incorporates the well-known and coined BRAZZERS mark (over 13 years after the Complainant commenced use of the BRAZZERS mark) and redirect it to a pay-per-click website with links offering adult services absent any awareness of Complainant and its BRAZZERS mark (and intention to capitalize on Complainant’s reputation in its BRAZZERS mark). In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s BRAZZERS Mark for commercial gain by using the Domain Name to resolve to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain. Use of an identical or confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA1408001575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Staples, Inc. and Staples the Office Superstores, LLC v. HANNA EL HIN / DTAPLES.COM, FA1404001557007 (Forum June 6, 2014) (“Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the <dtaples.com> domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) because the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to host third-party links to Complainant’s competitors from which Respondent is presumed to obtain some commercial benefit.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(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 <brazzers-tv.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: May 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page