Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-2107
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 16:50:57+00:00

Document:
Samsung Electronics Iberia S.A. v. Taranga Services, Pty Ltd.
The Complainant is Samsung Electronics Iberia S.A. of Madrid, Spain, of Spain, represented by Garrigues, Spain.
The Respondent is Taranga Services, Pty Ltd. of Wellington, New Zealand.
The disputed domain name <samsungplasma.com> is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 2, 2011. On December 2, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 5, 2011, Moniker Online Services, LLC.transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center appointed Cherise M. Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2012. 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 is a Spanish wholly-owned subsidiary of the South Korean entity SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS Co Ltd, parent of the SAMSUNG group, a group with an international reputation. SAMSUNG is a leading company in the electronics products market with sales close to EUR 130,000 million in 2009. According to “Interbrand Best Global Brands 2011”, SAMSUNG is ranked the 17th most valuable trademark in the world – above USD 23,000 million. The well-known character of the SAMSUNG trademark accrues from its intensive usage to identify its commercial activitysince the foundation of the Company in 1931.
- International trademark SAMSUNG no. 542299B registered on May 8, 1989 in classes 07, 09 and 14.
Taranga Services Pty Ltd. is listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 25, 2007 with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar or identical to the SAMSUNG trademark in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant’s registered trademark. The disputed domain name differs only from the licensed trademark of the Complainant in its addition of the generic word “plasma” to the SAMSUNG trademark.
The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name <samsungplasma.com> be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy.
The Respondent has failed to file any reply in these proceedings and is therefore in default and the Panel shall draw appropriate inferences therefrom.
The Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating that it is the owner of the registered trademark SAMSUNG. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, with the exception of the addition of the generic term “plasma”. The word "plasma" is generic because it describes a technology used for TV displays. It has been held in many prior UDRP panel decisions that when a domain name incorporates a registered mark in its entirety, it is generally accepted to be confusingly similar to that registered trademark. See, Heidelberger Druckmaschinen AG v. Wayne Graham (Trading) Limited, WIPO Case No. D2006-0113 and Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505.
In light of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark and that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is satisfied.
The burden of proof is on the Complainant to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Under the Policy, if a prima facie case is established by the Complainant, then the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not submit any Response or attempt to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Panel draws adverse inferences from this failure, where appropriate.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has failed to demonstrate such rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant has demonstrated that its trademarks are well-known and that the disputed domain name incorporates in full its trademark and that the Respondent has no relationship to the SAMSUNG trademark. The Panel shares the view that the registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a well-known trademark by any entity that does not have a relationship to that mark may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. See, Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast Consulting LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-1319.
The Complainant has provided evidence to the Panel that the Respondent has previously registered domain names conflicting with third party registered trademarks that were transferred to their legitimate owners according to the Policy. See, Eidos Interactive Limited v. Moniker privacy Services/Taranga Services Pty Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2009-0124. The evidence further suggests that the Respondent has intentionally chosen a domain name based on a registered trademark in order to make commercial use of the Complainant’s business name. The disputed domain name is “parked free” and is used to generate sponsored links or “related searches”, including SAMSUNG’s competitors and unauthorized dealers. Moreover, the Respondent has attempted to sell the disputed domain name to SAMSUNG or to its competitors, as is evidenced by the possibility to click on the link “make offer” on the website at the disputed domain name, whereby any interested party can make an offer to purchase the disputed domain name for at least USD 2,500, which is in excess of out-of-pocket costs directly related to the registration of a domain name. See, McDonald’s Corporation v. ZusCom, WIPO Case No. D2007-1353. Moreover, the Respondent has ignored the cease-and-desist letter sent by SAMSUNG. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling the disputed domain name in excess of out-of-pocket costs (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy) and to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <samsungplasma.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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