Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0736.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 20:32:31+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Bridgestone Corporation of Tokyo, Japan, represented by Sughrue Mion, PLLC, Washington D.C., United States of America.
The Respondent is Bridgestone Homes, Rochester, Michigan, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <bridgestonehomes.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on September�10,�2004. On September�13,�2004, the Center transmitted by email to Network Solutions, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September�15,�2004, Network Solutions, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September�17,�2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October�7,�2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October�12,�2004.
The Center appointed Daniel J. Gervais as the sole panelist in this matter on October�21,�2004. 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.
The Complainant, a Japanese corporation, is the largest tire and rubber company in the world. Its gross worldwide sales of all products were in excess of (US) $21 billion in 2003, and its tire sales were in excess of (US) $15 billion in 2003. BRIDGESTONE has been in use as a trademark and company name by Complainant since 1928. The BRIDGESTONE mark has been used on tires and other products in the United States since at least as early as 1956. BRIDGESTONE is registered as a trademark for various products throughout the world. In addition to tires for all types of vehicles, the BRIDGESTONE mark has been used, and is registered for a variety of other products. The Complainant operates websites at “www.bridgestone.com” and “www.bridgestonetire.com”, where the Complainant’s products are displayed under the BRIDGESTONE mark.
One of Complainant’s subsidiary companies is Bridgestone Americas Holding, INC (BSAH). This subsidiary company, which was formed in 1990, produces a variety of products, including building materials.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January�3,�2004. The domain name resolves to a site offering custom home building services.
Due to Complainant’s long use of BRIDGESTONE as a trademark, the fact that it is the second largest tire company in the world with annual sales under the BRIDGESTONE mark in the billions of dollars and advertising expenditures in the hundreds of millions of dollars, BRIDGESTONE is a famous mark and name which is entitled to a broad scope of protection. By virtue of Complainant’s long use and the renown of Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark, BRIDGESTONE is associated exclusively with Complainant and its related companies. The reputation associated with Complainant’s marks is excellent by virtue of the quality of Complainant’s goods and services.
The disputed domain name is identical to and confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE trademark. A domain name comprised of a generic or descriptive term and another’s trademark or service mark does not serve to dispel confusion.
The domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain <bridgestonehomes.com> based on Complainant’s continuous and extensive use of its BRIDGESTONE mark for many years, and the mark’s notoriety.
At the time Respondent selected BRIDGESTONE as part of its domain name, it was on constructive notice of Complainant’s trademark rights under 15 U.S.C. �1072. Respondent cannot conceivably claim to have been unaware of the famous BRIDGESTONE trademark, or the fact that the mark is owned by Complainant. Nor can Respondent deny that he did not have permission to use BRIDGESTONE as part of a domain name or in any other way.
Complainant has not consented to or authorized Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith. There is no justification for Respondent’s registration of Complainant’s mark other than to try to sell it to Complainant, or attract customers to its own website. There is no reason for Respondent to use Complainant’s famous mark in his domain name other than to use it to attract the public to Respondent’s website for commercial gain. If Respondent is permitted to continue to use and hold the domain name, the public is likely to be confused into believing or assuming that Complainant does not object the use of its trademark in a domain name used to sell homes. This confusion constitutes trademark infringement and dilution in both the tarnishing and blurring senses, irreparably damaging a famous trademark and an invaluable asset of Complainant.
Even though proper procedure was not followed, the Panel wishes to discuss the Respondent’s contentions. I will do so below, except with respect to the first point, of which I will dispose here, simply by pointing out that it is not the IRS’s mandate, nor that of any governmental agency (though they may have a theoretical right to act ex officio) to detect and prosecute trademark infringements. It is chiefly the trademark owner’s responsibility to do so, as was done here.
3. The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (see below, section 6.3.).
As to the first question, the wording of paragraph 4(a)(i) in regard to trademark or service mark has been interpreted by numerous Panels in the past to include both registered marks and common law marks. The record confirms that the Complainant’s mark BRIDGESTONE is registered in the United States, where the Respondent is based. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the mark BRIDGESTONE.
As to the second question, the Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark BRIDGESTONE with a generic word “homes” and the generic top-level domain reference ‘.com’. As a rule, when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s mark and adds a generic word, that is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy. See PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696; Experian Information Solutions, Inc. v. BPB Prumerica Travel (a/k/a SFXB a/k/a H. Bousquet a/k/a Brian Evans), WIPO Case No. D2002-0367; America Online, Inc. v. Chris Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2001-1184; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Diabetes Home Care, Inc. and DHC Services, WIPO Case No. D2001-0174; Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Kil Inja, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409; Nokia Corporation v. Nokiagirls.com a.k.a IBCC, WIPO Case No. D2000-0102.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name based on Complainant’s prior use of the BRIDGESTONE mark.
As was decided by several administrative panels, while the complainant has the burden of proof on this issue, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to show by providing concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue. The Complainant denies the Respondent’s legitimate interests and, in this Panel’s view, made a sufficient prima facie case. The Respondent, whom did not file a proper response, could be said not to have filed any evidence in support of a finding of legitimate interest. In the interest of maximum transparency and fairness, however, the Panel will consider the email of September 15, 2004. In that connection, I should note that, if the Respondent felt strongly about the disputed domain name, he should have filed a response an evidence in accordance with the terms of the Policy and Rules.
As to the choice of the name BRIDGESTONE, in his email of September 15, 2004, the Respondent does not deny that it knew BRIDGESTONE was a trademark for tires, and he acknowledges it is a coined or invented word, even though it is made up of two common words, namely “bridge” and “stone.” The Respondent asserts that the mark is better suited for a construction business than for tires. Yet, the Respondent builds homes, not bridges. Additionally, though there are exceptions, stronger trademarks tend to be those that are not descriptive of the product or service in relation with which they are used, even when they are composed of existing words (e.g. “Apple” for computers).
There is no evidence to decide in favor of the Respondent under subparagraph 4(c)(ii). Indeed, a simple assertion does not suffice to establish that one is “commonly known” by a certain name (see, e.g., Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, WIPO Case No. D2000-0624). Documentary evidence is required (see paragraph 4(c) and Rule 5(b)(ix)).
There is, however, a different question to consider under (a), for the Respondent seems to have spent a considerable amount of money and may have developed some local goodwill in the name BRIDGESTONE. Where the Respondent fails is in showing that the use was bona fide. Under US law, he was under constructive notice of the Complainant’s mark. Under the Policy, commercial use of a well-known mark as a domain name is not bona fide use (see, e.g, Scania CV AB v. Leif Westlye, WIPO Case No. D2000-0169).
A final point made by the Respondent is about his liability under US law rather than the Policy. The Panel notes, first, that the Respondent contractually accepted the terms of the Policy when he registered the domain name. Second, under US law, the Respondent was under constructive notice that Bridgestone was a registered trademark in the US Patent and Trademark Office not just for tires but also for building materials. On that basis, the Complainant would have a strong case under the US Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) [15 U.S.C. � 1125(d)] and possibly also under the anti-dilution provision of the Lanham Act [15 U.S.C. � 1125(c)], though that is not for this Panel to determine.
The Panel fully understands the predicament of the Respondent, but the Panel is bound to apply the law and the terms of the Policy. The principles that underpin both in this area could be summarized as follows: if one is negligent in not making sure that a name is “free to use” as a trademark, then one cannot escape the consequences of that negligence by using that name, even if a significant amount of money has been spent.
The Panel also notes that this decision only affects the transfer of the domain name, not the broader question of use of BRIDGESTONE by the Respondent on web pages or generally as a trademark. That is an issue left for the parties and that remains exclusively within the jurisdiction of US courts.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, as that term is used and defined in the Policy.
Apart from the famous nature of the Complainant’s marks, the domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark BRIDGESTONE. It is reasonable to conclude that the Respondent was familiar with the Complainant’s mark whether or not that person knew that such registration and use would be illegal under the Policy or applicable national laws (in this case the Lanham Act). The Policy requires an “intention to attract,” nothing more, and this intention may be deduced from the facts, especially in cases where the Complainant’s mark is famous or consists of an invented word. Here, BRIDGESTONE is both.
Use of the disputed domain name would likely have the effect of establishing an association between the Complainant and the Respondent in the minds of potential buyers, thus allowing the Respondent to benefit from the goodwill acquired through years of advertising, sales etc. A number of decisions under the Policy stand for the proposition that in respect of famous marks, which have a higher level of protection in international intellectual property agreements (see e.g., Article 16(2) and (3) of the TRIPS Agreement), the person who registers a confusingly similar domain name should be willing to show an intention to express himself or herself by responding to communications and/or indicating a good faith use of the domain name. See Pharmacia & Upjohn AB v. Dario H. Romero, WIPO Case No. D2000-1273; Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. v. [No Name], WIPO Case No. D2000-0515; Telstra Corporation, Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and the Cupcake Patrol a/k/a Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-0330; eBay Inc. v. Sunho Hong, WIPO Case No. D2000-1633 and Ellerman Investments Limited and The Ritz Hotel Casino Limited v. Antonios Manessis (trading as .com and manessis.com), WIPO�Case No. D2001-1461.
Based on the facts submitted, it is difficult to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be infringing to the Complainant’s mark, especially because of one the uses in respect of which the Complainant’s BRIDGESTONE mark is registered is to sell building materials.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.