Источник информации:
официальный сайт ВОИС

Для удобства навигации:
Перейти в начало каталога
Дела по доменам общего пользования
Дела по национальным доменам

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

The Complainants:

RIKIO.CO.,LTD.
KABUSHIKI KAISHA ICHITOKU

The Respondent:
Bramson Enterprises

The Disputed Domain Name:

rikio.com

The Registrar with which the domain name is registered:

Name: Bulkregister.com, Inc.
Email: nsiinfo@bulkregister.com

This Complaint was submitted on August 31, 2000, by e-mail and on September 4, 2000, in hard copy against the Respondent with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the Center) for decision in accordance with the Uniform Policy For Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999, (the Policy), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999, (the Rules) and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the Supplemental Rules).

On September 1, 2000, the receipt of the Complaint was acknowledged. The payment, required by the Rules and Supplemental Rules was made by the Complainants.

The Complaint was duly notified to the Respondent. A copy of this Complaint has also been sent to the Registrar, Bulkregister.com, Inc., with which the Respondent has registered its Domain Name, "rikio.com" that is identified in the Complaint.

On October 12, 2000, WIPO transmitted notification of the complaint and commencement of the proceeding to Response via e-mail and courier mail.

On October 4, 2000, the Respondent was notified of its default. Its late Response, submitted on October 5, 2000, was filed in the case file.

On October 17, 2000, the Center notified the parties of the appointment of the Administrative Panel. In accordance with Paragraph 7 (c)(i) of the Supplemental Rules, the Administrative Panel is properly constituted.

Since the registration agreement, pursuant to which the domain name is registered, incorporates the Policy, this dispute is within the scope of the Policy and the Administrative Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

The Panel’s decision is to be rendered by October 30, 2000.

RIKIO.CO.,LTD., one of the two Complainants has constantly manufactured and sold work shoes over the past 50 years and has grown to be the top manufacture in this field of industry. ICHITOKU, the other Complainant is a holding company whose president and address are the same as those of RIKIO.

The Complainants are owners of various trademarks for RIKIO. RIKIO is a well-known brand name of Jikatabi, Japanese traditional boots, commonly used in the construction field all over Japan.

In Japan, ICHITOKU has the trademark "RIKIO" (Reg. No. 4270357) from May 7, 1999, for clothing, garters, sock suspenders, trouser straps, band, belts, footwear, costumes, clothing for gymnastics, boots for sports and the trademark "RIKIO" (Reg.No.4311255) from September 3, 1999, for beer, beer wort.

In the United States, RIKIO has the trademark "RIKIO" (Reg.No.1670326) from December 31, 1991, for Japanese traditional boots, also known as Jikatabi, the trademark "力王" (Japanese writing) (Reg.No.1671190) from January 7, 1992, for Japanese traditional boots, also known as Jikatabi, the trademark "力王" (Japanese writing) (Reg.No.1671192) from January 7, 1992, for Japanese traditional boots, also known as Jikatabi, and the trademark (Graphic drawing of a pair of boots) (Reg. No.1698595) from June 30, 1992, for Japanese traditional boots, also known as Jikatabi.

RIKIO has advertised Jikatabi named RIKIO and the brand name itself for many years. It has also began publicizing the company and its products on its website "rikio.co.jp" from March 29, 2000.

The Respondent registered the domain name “rikio.com” in dispute on May 21, 2000, and recently opened the website of “rikio.com". This website shows that the Respondent, through its website “rikio.com”, intends to engage in online selling of Jikatabi (specifically the products of RIKIO), and to organize its own distributors, and to develop a new design of Jikatabi.

The Complainants assert that in accordance with the Policy Paragraph 4(a), the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding, because:

(1) The domain name “rikio.com” is identical or confusingly similar to a

trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights;

(2) The Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in respect of the

domain name “rikio.com”; and

(3) The domain name “rikio.com” was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainants’ factual and legal grounds for their contentions are, among others, as follows:

As to the Policy Paragraph 4 (a)(1):

(i) Users of the Internet looking for RIKIO’s online website will mistakenly go to the Respondent’s website and therefore will be confused by the Respondent’s use of the domain name “rikio.com” as its website address,

As to the Policy Paragraph 4 (a) (2):

(ii) The Respondent is neither a licensee of the Complainant’s trademarks nor is he otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any way whatsoever. He is not an authorized sales agent of the Complainants. The Complainants do not give any permission to use the name or the products on the website or elsewhere.

(iii) The Respondent has nothing to do with the name RIKIO since the name of the organization of the Respondent is Bramson Enterprises and the name of the owner is Aaron Bramson.

As to the Policy Paragraph 4 (a) (3):

(iv) The Respondent refers to RIKIO as a brand name of the Complainants or as the company name of one of the Complainants. The Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name “rikio.com” in bad faith is evidenced by the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainants’ rights to the trademark RIKIO or any other rights associated therewith.

(v) The Respondent dares to say on the website that he intends to sell the products of RIKIO online via the Internet, to set up and organize his distributors, and to develop a new design of Jikatabi through the website of “rikio.com”. These activities are obviously obstructions to the businesses of the Complainants. The Respondent does not have even a fragment of the right to do business in the name of RIKIO.

(vi) The use of the domain name by the Respondent is tarnishing the trademarks of the Complainants. Any person would believe that any website having the domain name “rikio.com” would be operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainants. It is quite confusing to Internet users as to the source of the goods that are or will be offered at “rikio.com”.

Based on these grounds, the Complainants claim that the Respondent’s domain name “rikio.com” be transferred to the Complainant RIKIO ( RIKIO.CO.,LTD.).

The Respondent has not duly responded to the Complaint.

The Policy Paragraph 4(a) provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) The domain name “rikio.com” is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark, in which the Complainant has rights,

(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name “rikio. com”; and

(iii) The domain name “rikio.com” has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

It is clear that the domain name “rikio.com” is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark "RIKIO" registered and used by the Complainants. Users’ misunderstanding and confusion will inevitably take place on the Internet.

The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest with regard to the domain name “rikio.com”, because he is neither a licensee of the Complainant’s trademarks nor is he an agent of the Complainants. The fact that the Respondent has nothing to do with the name RIKIO also shows the lack of any right or legitimate interest on the side of the Respondent.

The Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name “rikio.com” in bad faith is shown by the fact that the Respondent was, at the time of registration, aware of the Complainants’ trademark RIKIO. The Respondent’s use of the domain name in bad faith is also shown by his doing business on the website to sell the products of RIKIO online, to set up and to organize his own distributors.

Based on the evidences submitted by the Complainants, the Panel finds that their contentions are proved.

The Respondent’s delayed response, which the Panelist may ignore, however, includes no contentions that may have any effect on tits finding.

For all the foregoing reasons, the Policy Paragraph 4(a) requirements are met, namely:

(i) The Respondent’s domain name “rikio.com" is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainants’ trademarks,
(ii) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the domain name “rikio.com”; and
(iii) The domain name “rkkio.com” was registered and is being used in bad faith.

In accordance with the Policy Paragraph 4(i), the Panel orders as follows:

The registered domain name “rikio.com” be transferred to the Complainant RIKIO (RIKIO.CO., LTD.).

Zentaro Kitagawa
Sole Panelist

Dated: October 29, 2000