FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Consolidation:<\/strong> The Complainant requests to consolidate this dispute in respect of all seven (7) disputed domain names and multiple registrants since, in its opinion:<\/p>\n All of the disputed domain names are registered via the same registrar – “GoDaddy”, using the same nameservers, the same e-mail provider and the same MX records;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n All of the disputed domain names include similar keywords such as “team”, “global” or “hr” in addition to Complainant’s “HITACHI” mark, and\/or are using a similar e-mail address such as “hr@” or “hr.team@” the infringing domain name;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n The Complainant submits that at least four of the disputed domain names already have been used to perpetrate a highly similar fraud involving fake employment offers purportedly from the Complainant;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n All of the disputed domain names have been registered within a ten-month period and this indicates that they have been used one after the other; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n According to the Registrar verification all of the disputed domain names are allegedly registered by person(s) in India and each utilizes a gmail.com administrative email address. The Complainant alleges that all of the identifying WHOIS information is false. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES ARE IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS<\/p>\n The Complainant states that it is a Japanese multinational company that offers innovative consumer, business, government products, and services. The Complainant’s group of companies is commonly referenced as the “Hitachi Group”, comprised of Hitachi, Ltd. and hundreds of subsidiaries present on a global scale. “Hitachi Group” provides a wide range of products and services such as information and telecommunication systems, railway systems, energy solutions, building systems, and electronic systems and equipment. The Complainant alleges that “Hitachi Group” currently employs about 300,000 people worldwide. The Complainant refers to information from its official website and claims that it was founded in 1910 and has used the \"HITACHI\" mark in global commerce for 100 years.<\/p>\n The Complainant refers to its “HITACH” registered trademarks provided above and claims that it has invested copious amounts of time and money to promote the “HITACHI” brand worldwide.<\/p>\n Through such longstanding and exclusive use by the Complainant, the \"HITACHI\" mark is famous in Japan, India and throughout the world.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks since they fully incorporate the Complainant’s “HITACHI” mark with the addition of generic terms such as “team”, “teams”, “global”, “HR”, etc.<\/p>\n The mere addition of a generic term to a trademark does not avoid a finding of confusion. The gTLDs do not affect confusing similarity analysis.<\/p>\n Thus, the Complainant contends the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks.<\/p>\n THE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. The Respondent not only registered the disputed domain names many decades after Complainant’s rights in the famous and distinctive “HITACHI” marks were registered, but is also using the disputed domain names to perpetrate attempted fraud.<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that none of the circumstances provided in paragraph 4 (c) of the UDRP are present in this dispute, in particular:<\/p>\n The Complainant alleges that it has met its burden to make prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES WERE REGISTERED AND ARE BEING USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n The Complainant’s submissions on the bad faith element of the Policy can be summarized as follows:<\/p>\n The Respondent is perpetuating a fraud and phishing scam in an attempt to con Internet users. The Complainant states that the bad faith factors outlined under the Policy are by no means exhaustive. The Complainant refers to previous decisions of UDRP panels that found bad faith in case of attempted fraud. The Respondent has registered the confusingly similar disputed domain names to create confusion, then sent emails pretending to be an employee of a “Hitachi Group” HR department, in a deliberate attempt to defraud Internet users for pecuniary gain. The Respondent’s possible failure to make active public use of three of the disputed domain names does not refute Complainant’s allegations of bad faith. The fact that all of the disputed domain names share the exact same MX mail servers, were registered within a ten-month period and share other attributes as stated above, indicates that all of them have been registered and used in bad faith. The setting up of MX records indicates that all of the disputed domain names have been used in bad faith already, as there can be no legitimate purpose for anyone but the Complainant to send email from any of these disputed domain names.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n The Complainant claims that this is not the first time when it became a victim of impersonation and refers to earlier UDRP decisions in CAC Case No. 105339 and CAC Case No. 104276.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant claims the disputed domain names were registered and being used in bad faith.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " The Complainant’s contentions are summarized in the Factual Background section above.<\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/p>\n <\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n Preliminary issue: Consolidation against multiple registrants<\/strong><\/p>\n The Complainant requests consolidation of all seven disputed domain names and multiple registrants into a single dispute for the reasons explained above.<\/p>\n The Panel first notes that under par. 3 (c) of the UDRP Rules, the complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder. Consolidation is also addressed in “WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition” (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11, which states that “panels look at whether (i) the domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control, and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all parties. Procedural efficiency would also underpin panel consideration of such a consolidation scenario<\/em>”.<\/p>\n The Complainant in its submissions suggests that all seven disputed domain names are subject to common control due to their common features described above in the Factual background section.<\/p>\n The Panel having considered Complainant’s arguments in favor of consolidation, evidence provided as well as facts of this dispute, and also its limited research conducted under par. 10 (a) of the Rules and its authority under par. 10 (e) of the Rules, decided to accept the consolidation request based on the following:<\/p>\n 6 out of 7 disputed domain names on the date of this decision resolve to similar webpages with PPC links and the domain name <hrhitachigroup.com> redirects to Complainant’s own website;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n All of the disputed domain names were registered within a ten-month period one after the other at intervals of one or a few months apart. While a ten-month period per se may seem rather long, the Complainant made a plausible argument of “a fraudster buying a new “burner phone” once in a while to avoid being tracked”;<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Totality of the circumstances of this dispute indicate that all the named registrants are either different aliases of the same person or they are commonly controlled. The Panel in “Scribd, Inc. v. Robert Brink, Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Ly Tran, Oscar Enriquez, and Minh Le, Home”, WIPO Case No. D2022-3887 noted that “Common control may be indicated where various commonalities are present among the domain names concerned” and among such commonalities the Panel highlighted the following: “as common webserver IP addresses, nameservers, registrars, or web hosting arrangements. Finally, commonalities of use indicating a sufficient unity of interests may be of significance, such as similar activities and designs among the websites associated with the domain names concerned”. This Panel finds that such commonalities are present in this dispute as described above; and<\/p>\n<\/li>\n Based on the above the Panel finds that all of the disputed domain names are more likely than not under common control. Taking into account evidence available and facts of the case, Panel’s own limited research and previous UDRP decisions in similar circumstances (e.g. CAC Case No. 103663<\/strong>: “In view of these similarities between the disputed domain names the Panel finds it more likely than not that both of them are owned by the same person and the Respondent has not participated in this case to dispute the claim of common ownership<\/em>”) consolidation is fair and equitable to both parties.<\/p>\n Based on the above, the Panel accepts the consolidation request of the Complainant and will refer to all named respondents in the complaint as “Respondent”.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Igor Motsnyi"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-04-10 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " In this proceeding the Complainant relies on the following “HITACHI” trademark registrations:<\/p>\n\n
<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n
<\/p>\n\n
\n
<\/li>\n
<\/li>\n\n