WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Fujitsu Limited v. Qiong Jia

Case No. D2014-1307

1. The Parties

Complainant is Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Fujitsu Limited of Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan, represented by Sanderson & Co., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“UK”).

Respondent is Qiong Jia of Egypt, Switzerland, Chile and United States of America (“US”).

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> are registered with Shanghai Meicheng Technology Information Development Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2014. On July 31, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 4, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On August 4, 2014, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On August 6, 2014, Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 13, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 2, 2014. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on September 3, 2014.

The Center appointed Yijun Tian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 12, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

Complainant, Kabushiki Kaisha also trading as Fujitsu Limited, is a company incorporated in Minato-ku, Tokyo, Japan. Founded in 1935, Complainant is a leading company in the information and communication technologies (ICT) space and it employs approximately 162,000 employees worldwide (as of March 2014).

Complainant has exclusive rights in the FUJITSU Marks. Complainant is the exclusive owner of famous and well-known registered trademarks globally, including the European Union (“EU”) (since December 12, 2000), the UK (since June 13, 1967), the US (30 December 1964), China (since April 11, 1985) and Japan (since October 24, 1960). (Annex 4 to the Complaint).

Respondent is Qiong Jia of Egypt. The disputed domain names <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> were all registered on May 14, 2014.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

(a) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

The FUJITSU mark symbolizes the significant goodwill associated with Complainant and is a substantial property right of significant value.

The FUJITSU mark enjoys fame as a result of favourable public acceptance and recognition worldwide.

Complainant has registered its FUJITSU mark and/or variations of that mark in more many countries around the world, including the EU (since December 12, 2000), the UK (since June 13, 1967), the USA (December 30 1964), China (since April 11, 1985) and Japan (since October 24, 1960). (Annex 4 to the Complaint)

Complainant’s trademark rights in the FUJITSU Marks long predate Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names in May 2014.

The “.com” component in the disputed domain names is just the generic Top-Level Domain suffix and may be ignored when making a comparison. Complainant’s trademarks consist of the word “fujitsu” which is the dominant opening element of three of the disputed domain names.

For <fujitsucojp.com> the rest of the disputed domain name is the abbreviations “co” (for company) and “jp” (for Japan), which are descriptive of Complainant and do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name.

For <fujitsufmv.com> the rest of the disputed domain name is the abbreviation “fmv” which does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name. FMV is a trademark of Complainant used to designate a range of personal computers it produces.

For <fujitsupcjp.com> the rest of the disputed domain name is the abbreviations “pc” (for “personal computer”) and “jp” (for Japan) which are descriptive of the products of Complainant and their origin in Japan. These do nothing to distinguish these disputed domain names.

In <hujitsucomputer.com>, hujitsu is a potential transliteration of the pronunciation of the Japanese word “fujitsu”. It is also but one letter different and a possible typing error. The rest of the disputed domain name is the word “computer” (which is a descriptive indicator of the Complainant’s products) and does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain names are therefore all confusingly similar to the prior rights of Complainant.

The word “fujitsu” contained in the disputed domain names is identical to Complainant’s trademark rights, and “husitsu” is a close transliteration.

The public would easily associate the disputed domain names with Complainant’s marks and be misled into believing that the disputed domain names are associated with Complainant.

(b) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names.

Founded in 1935, Complainant is a leading company in the information and communication technologies (ICT) space and it employs approximately 162,000 employees worldwide (as of March 2014).

Complainant has used its FUJITSU trademark and trade name for more than 50 years. It has sold billions of dollars of products under the FUJITSU mark over the years.

Complainant spends heavily each year to advertise and promote FUJITSU-branded products and services in countries around the world.

It also extensively promotes its products and services under the FUJITSU mark on the Internet. For example, Complainant operates a website “www.fujitsu-webmart.com” which sells its products.

Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant’s trademarks, nor is Respondent in any way associated with Complainant or other of Complainant’s group of companies.

Respondent is in no way authorised by or affiliated with Complainant.

Complainant has extensively used the FUJITSU trademark for many years and has also registered this mark in various jurisdictions. The disputed domain names were only registered on May 14, 2014 long after the mark was first used and registered by Complainant.

In prior cases where “cyber-squatters” acquired a domain name incorporating a “famous” trademark (such as <hitachisemiconductor.com>), but intentionally “re-direct” visitors to other websites not affiliated with the trademark owner, this does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods/services.

There is no evidence of bona fide use. One of the disputed domain names resolves to a website purporting to sell goods branded FUJITSU (Annex 5 to the Complaint). The other disputed domain names do not currently resolve to active websites as can be seen from the screen shots in Annex 6 to the Complaint.

The authenticity of the FUJITSU-branded products cannot be verified, and these disputed domain names have been registered to support a scam targeting people looking for FUJITSU branded and reputed products.

The website shown in Annex 5 shows a striking similarity to that shown on “www.fujitsu-webmart.com” which is a genuine website associated with Complainant.

Investigations have failed to locate any registrations for FUJITSU or any variant in the name of Respondent. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names on any legitimate grounds.

The use of the disputed domain names is neither legitimate nor noncommercial. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, and Respondent is not using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Nor is such use a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. There seems to be an effort by Respondent to use the efforts and reputation of Complainant to deceive.

(c) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

At least one of the disputed domain names is being used to offer for sale FUJITSU-branded products, which are not believed to have originated from Complainant, and which are therefore likely to be fakes.

The disputed domain names appear to have been used to commit fraudulent actions, i.e. the sale of counterfeit branded goods, in order to deceive and extract money from those believing they are buying genuine products.

The disputed domain names have been designed and registered with these or similar fraudulent actions in mind and as a main or exclusive purpose, i.e. the disputed domain name registrations were made in bad faith.

Respondent is clearly engaged in bad faith use and registration. Respondent is holding disputed domain names which demonstrate unauthorised use of Complainant’s mark (including the distinctive logo), and it is very likely that Respondent is receiving (or is trying to) benefit (financial or otherwise) as a result of the confusion and by the sale of apparently counterfeit products.

One of the key requisites to finding “bad faith” is the inference of either “constructive notice” or “actual notice” by the domain name holder, of the other party’s trademark rights in the mark.

In addition to “constructive notice” on the basis of the trademark registrations; there is the extensive use by Complainant of the FUJITSU trademark in connection with its goods/services. The term “Fujitsu” is neither descriptive nor generic, yet has been used in a cloned website by Respondent.

All of these factors lead to a finding of Respondent having constructive and/or actual notice of the rights to the FUJITSU trademark.

Use of the disputed domain names may both now and in the future create Internet traffic or emails for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion, or at least “initial interest confusion,” as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of any website associated with the domain name or the destination of any email.

The disputed domain names and websites are clearly intended to confuse an Internet user into believing, as a result in part of the association with the strong reputation of Complainant, in the authenticity of products that are counterfeit or in the authenticity of some other activity which is in fact fraudulent.

A user induced to buy products from a domain name including the mark FUJITSU is likely to believe it is genuinely connected to Complainant – and thus risk falling for a scam. Some of Complainant’s customers have already been scammed by these sites as they paid for products that they never received.

By the use of the mark FUJITSU in the disputed domain names, and the cloning of Complainant’s own site Respondent intentionally attempted (and continues to attempt) to use the reputation of Complainant so that Internet users may be deceived.

Tarnishment of the Complainant’s reputation may also occur resulting from such mistaken association.

Respondent is exhibiting a pattern of bad faith domain registrations. Respondent was the losing party in several recent previous UDRP complaints. Searches of whoIs data has shown that Respondent has also registered many other domain names aimed toward Japanese consumers, some of which also include the famous trademarks of others.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

6.1. Language of the Proceeding

The language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11, in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. From the evidence presented on the record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between Complainant and Respondent to the effect that the language of the proceeding should be English. Complainant filed initially its Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceedings for the following reasons:

(a) The websites resolved from the only disputed domain name to have a site is in Japanese and English.

(b) The whoIs details of the disputed domains are associated with contact details in Egypt, Chile, USA and Switzerland. Apart from Respondent’s name which could be the name of a person of Chinese origin, there is no other evidence that supports the possibility that Respondent is resident in China or understands Chinese.

(c) It is believed that Respondent’s name is concealing the true identity of the owner who is likely not Chinese. The obviously fake address details tend to support the lack of link to China.

(d) As this Complaint is being filed in English, it is submitted that to change the language of the proceeding to Chinese will lead to delay and higher burden on Complainant with no benefit.

(e) English is also a language with which Complainant is well versed and it is the mother tongue of Complainant’s representative.

Respondent did not make any submissions with respect to the language of the proceedings and did not object to the use of English as the language of the proceedings.

Paragraph 11(a) allows the Panel to determine the language of the proceedings having regard to all the circumstances. In particular, it is established practice to take paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules into consideration for the purpose of determining the language of the proceedings. In other words, it is important to ensure fairness to the parties and the maintenance of an inexpensive and expeditious avenue for resolving domain name disputes. (Whirlpool Corporation, Whirlpool Properties, Inc. v. Hui’erpu (HK) electrical appliance co. ltd., WIPO Case No. D2008-0293; Solvay S.A. v. Hyun-Jun Shin, WIPO Case No. D2006-0593). The language finally decided by the Panel for the proceedings should not be prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case. (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004). WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) further states:

“in certain situations, where the respondent can apparently understand the language of the complaint (or having been given a fair chance to object has not done so), and complainant would be unfairly disadvantaged by being forced to translate, the WIPO Center as a provider may accept the language of the complaint, even if it is different from the language of the registration agreement”. (WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 4.3; see also L’Oreal S.A. v. MUNHYUNJA, WIPO Case No. D2003-0585).

The Panel has taken into consideration the facts that Complainant is a company from Japan, and Complainant will be spared the burden of working in Chinese as the language of the proceedings. The Panel has also taken into consideration the facts that the websites at the disputed domain names includes Latin characters “fujitsu”, “hujitsu”, as well as English words “computer”, English abbreviations “co” (for company), “jp” (for Japan) and pc (for “personal computer”) (Compagnie Gervais Danone v. Xiaole Zhang, WIPO Case No. D2008-1047).

On the record, Respondent appears to be a Chinese individual and is thus presumably not a native English speaker, but the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that, based on the evidence provided by Complainant, (a) the disputed domain names <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> are registered in Latin characters and particularly in English language, rather than Chinese script; (b) The websites resolved from the only disputed domain name (<fujitsucojp.com>) to have a site is in Japanese and English, and Respondent is apparently doing business in Japanese and English through the website (Annex 5 to the Complaint); (c) the website appears to have been directed to users worldwide (particularly Japanese and English speakers) rather than Chinese speakers; (d) the Center has notified Respondent of the proceedings in both Chinese and English, and Respondent has indicated no objection to Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceedings; (e) the Center informed Respondent that it would accept a Response in either English or Chinese.

Considering these circumstances, the Panel finds the choice of English as the language of the present proceeding is fair to both parties and is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her ability to articulate the arguments for this case. Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceedings, and the decision will be rendered in English.

6.2. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain names should be cancelled or transferred:

(i) the disputed domain names registered by Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights;

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

On the basis of the evidence introduced by Complainant and in particular with regard to the content of the relevant provisions of the Policy, (paragraphs 4(a), (b), (c)), the Panel concludes as follows:

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the FUJITSU Marks acquired through registration. The FUJITSU Mark has been registered worldwide including in the EU, the US, Japan and China, and Complainant has a widespread reputation as a leading company in the information and communication technologies (ICT) space and it employs approximately 162,000 employees worldwide (as of March 2014).

The disputed domain names comprise the FUJITSU Mark in its entirety. The disputed domain names <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> only differ from Complainant’s trademark by the additions of the words “co”, “jp”, “fmv”, “pc”, “computer” or by only a few letters – Respondent has changed the spelling of “fujitsu” by one letter. This does not eliminate the identity or at least the confusing similarity between Complainant’s registered trademark and the disputed domain names.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that a domain name may be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark for purposes of the Policy “when the domain name includes the trade mark, 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).

Generally a respondent “may not avoid likely confusion by appropriating another’s entire mark and adding descriptive or non-distinctive matter to it.” (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, WIPO Case No. D2009-0610; General Electric Company v. CPIC NET and Hussain Syed, WIPO Case No. D2001-0087).

The mere addition of the descriptive terms of English abbreviations “co” (for “company”), “jp” (for “Japan”) or “pc” (for “personal computer”) as suffixes to Complainant’s mark fails to distinguish to this Panel the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark. By contrast, it may increase the likelihood of confusion. The “pc” is one of products of Complainant. “jp” (for “Japan”) is where Respondent’s company located. Internet users who visit <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com> and <fujitsupcjp.com> are likely to be confused and may falsely believe that <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com> and <fujitsupcjp.com> operated by Complainant for selling FUJITSU-branded products, such as computer.

Moreover, as to “typosquatting”, paragraph 1.10 of WIPO Overview 2.0 states:

“A domain name which contains a common or obvious misspelling of a trademark normally will be found to be confusingly similar to such trademark, where the misspelled trademark remains the dominant or principal component of the domain name.”

As the disputed domain name <hujitsucomputer.com> is only one letter typographical errors of Complainant’s FUJITSU marks together with the generic term “computer”, the Panel finds that this disputed domain name must be considered a prototypical example of typosquatting.

Thus, the Panel finds that the additions are not sufficient to negate the confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the FUJITSU Marks.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the first condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances any of which is sufficient to demonstrate that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name:

(i) use of, or preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

(ii) having been commonly known by the disputed domain name; or

(iii) legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The overall burden of proof on this element rests with Complainant. However, it is well established by previous UDRP panel decisions that once a complainant establishes a prima facie case that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden shifts to the respondent to rebut the complainant’s contentions. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. (Danzas Holding AG, DHL Operations B.V. v. Ma Shikai, WIPO Case No. D2008-0441; WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 2.1 and cases cited therein).

Complainant has rights in the FUJITSU Mark globally, including registration in the EU (since December 12, 2000), registration in the UK (since June 13, 1967), registration in the USA (December 30, 1964), registration in China (since April 11, 1985) and registration in Japan (since October 24, 1960), (Annex 4 to the Complaint), which long precedes Respondents’ registrations of the disputed domain names (May 14, 2014).

According to Complainant, founded in 1935, Complainant is a leading company in the information and communication technologies (ICT) space and it employs approximately 162,000 employees worldwide (as of March 2014).

Moreover, Respondent is not an authorized dealer of FUJITSU-branded products. Complainant has therefore established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and thereby shifted the burden to Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra; Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624; Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455).

Based on the following reasons the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names:

(a) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has not provided evidence of a legitimate use of the disputed domain names or reasons to justify the choice of the word “fujitsu” in the disputed domain names business operation or the use of the FUJITSU Marks and design on its website (“www.fujitsucojp.com”) (without disclaimer or other clarifying details). There has been no evidence to show that Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the FUJITSU Mark or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating the FUJITSU Mark;

(b) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent has any registered trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain names. Respondent registered the disputed domain names <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> on May 14, 2014, long after Complainant’s registrations of the FUJITSU Marks (e.g. in Japan since 1960: in China since 1985) (Annex 4 to the Complaint). The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s FUJITSU Mark.

(c) There has been no evidence adduced to show that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. By contrast, according to the information provided by Complainant, Respondent was in actuality advertising, offering and selling purported FUJITSU products at <fujitsucojp.com> (Annex 5 to the Complaint), mimicking one of Complainant’s websites.

The Panel finds that Respondent has failed to produce any evidence to establish its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the second condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, namely:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registrations to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s websites or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that the circumstances referred to in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are applicable to the present case and upon the evidence of these circumstances and other relevant circumstances, it is adequate to conclude that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

a) Registered in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that Complainant has a widespread reputation in the FUJITSU Marks with regard to its products. Complainant has registered its FUJITSU Marks internationally, including registration in China (since 1985). Moreover, Respondent uses the FUJITSU Marks and design on its website at <fujitsucojp.com> (without disclaimer or other clarifying details), and the website advertises for sale various purported FUJITSU products. Respondent would likely not have advertised products purporting to be FUJITSU products on the Website if it was unaware of FUJITSU’s reputation. In the other words, it is not conceivable that Respondent would not have had actual notice of Complainant’s trademark right at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel also finds that the FUJITSU Mark is not one that traders could legitimately adopt other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with Complainant. (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra).

Moreover, Respondent has chosen not to formally respond to Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra, “the failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. (See also Bayerische Motoren Werke AG v. (This Domain is For Sale) Joshuathan Investments, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2002-0787). Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith with the intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant’s FUJITSU branded products.

b) Used in Bad Faith

Complainant has adduced evidence to prove that by using confusingly similar disputed domain names, Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s websites” purportedly offering Complainant’s FUJITSU-branded products and services without authorization. Complainant claimed that the use of the disputed domain names may both now and in the future create Internet traffic or emails for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion, or at least “initial interest confusion,” as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of any website associated with the disputed domain names or the destination of any email.

To establish an “intention for commercial gain” for the purpose of this Policy, evidence is required to indicate that it is “more likely than not” that intention existed (The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company, supra.)

Given the widespread reputation of the FUJITSU Marks (as well as the content on Respondent’s website “www.fujitsucojp.com” - mentioned above), the Panel finds that the public is likely to be confused into thinking that the disputed domain name <fujitsucojp.com> has a connection with Complainant, contrary to the fact. There is a strong likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name is resolved (see Annex 5 to the Complaint). In other words, Respondent has through the use of a confusingly similar domain name and webpage contents created a likelihood of confusion with the FUJITSU Marks.

Noting also that apparently no clarification as to Respondent’s relationship to Complainant is made on the homepage of the disputed domain name <fujitsucojp.com>, potential Internet users are led to believe that the website at “www.fujitsucojp.com” is either Complainant’s sites or the sites of official authorized agents of Complainant, which it is not. Moreover, Respondent has not responded formally to the Complaint. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was used by Respondent in bad faith.

As to <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com>, based on the information provided by Complainant, these three disputed domain names are currently inactive. In terms of inactive domain names, the WIPO Overview 2.0 provides: “With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith” (paragraph 3.2.). The WIPO Overview 2.0 further stated: “The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint having been filed, and the registrant’s concealment of its identity. Panels may draw inferences about whether the disputed domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration, and vice versa.”

Based on information provided by Complainant, founded in 1935, Complainant is a leading company in the information and communication technologies (ICT) space and it employs approximately 162,000 employees worldwide (as of March 2014). Complainant has rights in the FUJITSU Mark globally, including registration in the EU (since December 12, 2000), registration in the UK (since 13 June 1967), registration in the USA (December 30, 1964), registration in China (since April 11, 1985) and registration in Japan (since October 24, 1960). (Annex 4 to the Complaint). As such, Complainant’s FUJITSU, arguably, are widely known trademark. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the Panel concludes that the passively held disputed domain names are used by Respondent in bad faith.

In summary, Respondent, by choosing to register and use the disputed domain names which are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark, intended to ride on the goodwill of Complainant’s trademark in an attempt to exploit, for commercial gain, Internet users destined for Complainant. In the absence of evidence to the contrary and rebuttal from Respondent, the choice of the disputed domain name and the conduct of Respondent as far as the website to which one of the disputed domain names resolves is indicative of registration and use of the disputed domain names in bad faith.

The Panel therefore holds that the Complaint fulfils the third condition of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names at <fujitsucojp.com>, <fujitsufmv.com>, <fujitsupcjp.com> and <hujitsucomputer.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Yijun Tian
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 13, 2014