CONSOLIDATION
Previous panels have considered a range of factors to determine whether such consolidation is appropriate. These include similarities in or other relevant aspects of the registrants’ identities, the nature of the marks at issue and naming patterns in the disputed domain names.
In this case, each of the disputed domain names includes the Complainant’s trademark SONY. Whilst the registrant name and location are different for each disputed domain name, the Panel finds that is more than likely that the disputed domain names are under the control of the same registrant.
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO THE COMPLAINANT`S TRADEMARK
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark SONY and to the relative domain names registered by the Complainant, which has proven to have prior rights since 1964.
In particular, the Panel agrees that the mere addition of the words Prize or Lottery are not only unable to alter the confusing similarity of the dominant component SONY, but in themselves show the same design aimed at taking unfair / illicit profit of Complainant's mark.
Many WIPO and CAC decisions – including CAC case No. 103930 – confirmed that domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy, “when the domain name includes the trademark, or a confusingly similar approximation, regardless of the other terms in the domain name” (Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Richard MacLeod d/b/a For Sale, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662).” For the same reasons, the addition of generic words after a trademark does not remove the confusing similarity between a mark and the domain name.
THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
According to the information provided by the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the trademark SONY. Likewise, the Complainant neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to make any use of its SONY trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain name on behalf of the Complainant.
On the other side, it is true that the Respondent purportedly attempted to use the <sonylottery.com> for phishing/fraudulent purposes.
THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH
The Complainant, especially considering the reputation of its international brand, provided evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. The examples provided in paragraph 4(b) UDRP rules are not exhaustive, and the requisite bad faith element may be deemed present by other circumstances. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. sony.net, WIPO Case No. D2000-1074 (November 28, 2000).
As confirmed by the aforementioned WIPO Overview 3.0 “given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods >or phishing< can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith”. Complainant has put forward evidence and set out a prima facie case that the disputed domain name <sonylottery.com> has been used for phishing purposes.
Identical conclusions apply to other domain names <Sony-prize.com and Sonyprize.com>.
In the absence of any reply from the Respondent, and also given the attempt made by the Complainant to solve the issue reporting the facts to the Registrar, it is the Panel belief that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
|