Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-0802.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 20:01:04+00:00

Document:
The response was acknowledged by the Center on August 21, 2000, when the Center sought from the complainant a curative filing to the complaint to comply with the mutual jurisdiction requirements under version 4.0 of the registrar�s Registration Agreement. This was filed by email on August 22, 2000 and in hard copy on August 23, 2000.
The domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> registered by the respondent are confusingly similar to the complainant�s mark TOYOTA, and are otherwise identical to the complainant�s mark TOYOTA except for the use of the generic letter "i" for Internet, and the letter "s" which is the plural form of the complainant�s mark TOYOTA.
The respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com>. The respondent is neither an authorized dealer or distributor of TOYOTA automobiles nor has it been licensed to use the mark TOYOTA by the complainant. Moreover, to the best of the complainant�s knowledge, the respondent has not made any demonstrable preparations to use the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> or the marks ITOYOTA and ITOYOTAS other than registering the domain names.
The domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> do not resolve to active sites; accordingly, confused customers of the complainant are likely to be frustrated in their efforts to reach the complainant�s web site.
That the respondent registered and is using the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> in bad faith is evidenced by the respondent�s pattern of registering multiple domain names which are identical or confusingly similar to famous and/or well-known marks, many of which are those of automobile manufacturers. A Whois database search conducted on July 14, 2000 proves the respondent is accumulating, collecting and hoarding numerous domain names of well known marks 1.
The respondent�s registration and use of the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> in bad faith is further evidenced by the respondent�s knowledge of the complainant�s rights in the mark TOYOTA and its preventing the complainant from using domain names that incorporate its famous and well-known mark TOYOTA with the generic prefix "i" and the plural "s." The respondent�s actions have therefore unduly interfered with and disrupted the complainant�s ability to promote its own products and services.
As noted above, the complainant has used the mark TOYOTA substantially and continuously for over 42 years on products and services throughout most of the world. The significant goodwill and value of the mark TOYOTA is understood by the respondent and undoubtedly is what prompted its registration of the domain name. Given the fame of the mark TOYOTA, it is clear that the respondent registered the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> with full knowledge of the complainant�s rights in the trademark and service mark TOYOTA, either for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent�s out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain names or to intentionally trade off of the complainant�s significant good will and value in the mark TOYOTA to divert traffic intended for the complainant. The respondent�s conduct also prevents the complainant from promoting its own products and services. The result is that Internet traffic intended for the complainant will be diverted to the respondent. The respondent�s use of the domain names <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com> clearly creates a likelihood of confusion with the complainant�s mark. Since the respondent is not licensed to use the mark TOYOTA in this manner, the complainant is harmed because its valuable trademark and reputation is being placed into the hands of the respondent over which it has no control. The public is harmed because it is likely to be confused as to the source of the goods/services that are or will be offered at <itoyota.com> and <itoyotas.com>.
The respondent�s request for additional time until September 30, 2000 to seek discovery and depositions is rejected as those processes are beyond the scope of this proceeding. The Panel notes the respondent managed to provide, within time, a robust response and did not put forward any exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time, as required under Rule 5(d).
"A number of panel decisions have considered a Reply or Rebuttal without comment. See, e.g., Cedar Trade Associates, Inc. v. Ricks, ICANN Case No. FA0002000093633; Aero-Turbine, Inc. v. Mcayman, Ltd., ICANN Case No. FA000200093675; Travel Services, Inc. v. Tour COOP of Puerto Rico, ICANN Case No. FA0001000092524; Heelquick!, Inc. v. Goldman, et al., ICANN Case No. FA0001000092527. Because the distinguished panelists in these cases did not discuss this issue, the Panel in the present case does not have the benefit of their reasoning. However, looking at the Rules and the decision in Easyjet Airline Co., Ltd. v. Steggles, ICANN Case No. D2000-0024, the Panel is persuaded that documents, whether designated "replies" or "rebuttals," are not called for in the Rules. Paragraph 12 of the Rules provides for additional submissions only at the Panel�s request, in its sole discretion. The Panel is persuaded by the reasoning of Easyjet, supra, that such unrequested submissions should not be considered. Id. at paragraph 5,I."
With respect to those learned panelists, this panel does not interpret Rule 12 as precluding acceptance of additional uninvited submissions under the panel�s general powers conferred by Rule 10, particularly having regard to the panel�s duty under Rule 10(b) to ensure each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. If a respondent raises matter which the complainant could not have been expected to have addressed in its complaint, admission of an uninvited reply may be warranted in the interests of fairness. It would be an odd result if the panel may request a reply in such circumstances under Rule 12 but must refuse an uninvited reply on the same topic, simply because there is no express provision for such a reply in the Rules.
In this case the panel does not admit the reply because it carries the complainant�s case no further than the complaint and fairness to the parties does not warrant its admission.
Each of the domain names itoyota.com and itoyotas.com is virtually identical to the complainant�s registered trade mark TOYOTA. See Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Taylor, 21 F. Supp. 2d 1003, 1005 (D. Minn. 1998) (finding "post-it.com" and "Post-It" to be the same); Interstellar Starship Servs. Ltd. v. Epix, Inc., 983 F. Supp. 1331, 1335 (D. Or. 1997) ("In the context of Internet use, [�epix.com�] is the same mark as [�EPIX�]"); Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Bucci, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3338, No. 97-0629 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 1997) (concluding that "planned-parenthood.com" and "Planned Parenthood" were essentially identical), aff�d, 152 F.3d 920 (2d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 90 (1998).
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out, without limitation, circumstances which, if proved, establish the registrant�s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. The respondent does not raise any circumstances envisaged in sub-pararaphs (ii) or (iii). In relation to the domain name itoyota.com, the respondent points to its current web page as showing use of the domain name in connection with a marketplace for the supply of used (and possibly new) Toyota vehicles over the Internet.
At the time of the complaint, neither domain name resolved into an active web site. The Center�s attempt to print out the two web pages on July 31, 2000 produced the same result. The response to the complaint included a web page for itoyota.com printed out on August 19, 2000. No attempt was made by the respondent to produce a web page print out for itoyotas.com.
The panel�s attempts on September 1, 2000 to print out the two web pages produced the same web page for itoyota.com as was contained in the response and, as happened to the complainant and to the Center, did not produce an active web page for itoyotas.com.
The panel is not satisfied either domain name was in use before notice to the respondent of the dispute, nor that the respondent has demonstrated preparations, before notice of the dispute, to use either name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It follows that the respondent�s explanation of its business plans for and current use of the site itoyota.com may be treated as having been devised after notice of this dispute in an endeavour to resist the complaint.
There is no evidence of the date of registration of the disputed domain names. That/those date/s must have been decades after the first use by the complainant of the trade mark TOYOTA. It is inconceivable that the respondent was not fully aware of the fame of the mark TOYOTA when registering the disputed domain names, especially having regard to the other famous automobile trade marks also registered by the respondent as domain names with similar prefixes and suffixes. The respondent does not dispute the complainant�s claim to fame.
It is true that trade mark law does not prevent the use in advertising of another�s trade mark in connection with an offering to supply genuine goods of that trade mark owner. But trade mark infringement is not required to be shown under the Policy. Registration of a domain name goes further than merely correctly using in an advertisement the trade mark of another in connection with that other�s goods or services: it prevents the trade mark owner from reflecting that mark in a corresponding domain name. Registering a domain name for such a purpose shall be evidence of both bad faith registration and use (Policy, para. 4(b)(ii)) provided there has been a pattern of such conduct.
On the evidence, the respondent activated the itoyota.com web site only after receiving notice of this dispute (that being the only one of all those mentioned to be presently active) and has offered no explanation at all as to the name itoyotas.com. The response gives the impression that the itoyota.com site has been active for some time but the searches by the complainant and the Center show that this was not so. Such conduct enables the inference to be drawn more readily that the purpose of the respondent in registering the disputed domain names was to prevent the complainant from reflecting its marks in corresponding domain names, and that this was also the respondent�s purpose when registering the other domain names that have been mentioned.
1. Network Solutions, Inc.�s Whois database only provides a list of 50 registered domain names. However, even this limited listing discloses that the respondent has registered, in addition to the domain names at issue, the domain names: ICADDILAC.COM, IVOLKSWAGEN.COM, IJEEPS.COM, IHONDAS.COM, IBUICK.COM, IMERCEDES.COM, ICHRYSLER.COM, IHONDA.COM, ISUBARU.COM, IAUDI.COM, IMAZDA.COM, IPLYMOUTH.COM, IDODGE.COM, and INISSAN.COM, all of which are identical or confusingly similar to well known trademarks, specifically of automobile manufacturers, and all of which incorporate the generic letter "i" as a prefix and some of which incorporate the generic letter "s" as a suffix.

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