WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Singapore Cable Vision Ltd. v. Allied Pacific Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd.
Case No. D2000-0674
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Singapore Cable Vision Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore, having its principal place of business at 2D Ayer Rajah Crescent, AOS Building, Singapore 139938.
The Respondent is Allied Pacific Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd., a corporation organized under the laws of Singapore, having its registered office at 541 Orchard Road #101-01 Liat Towers, Singapore 238881.
2. The Domain Name(s) and Registrar(s)
The domain name at issue is <singaporecablevision.com>, registered with Alabanza, Inc. d/b/a Bulkregister.com, Inc. ("Bulkregister.com") of Maryland, U.S.A.
3. Procedural History
(1) A Complaint was submitted electronically to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 26, 2000, and the signed original together with four copies forwarded by express courier under cover of a letter of the same date. The Complainant made the required fee payment.
(2) The Center sent to the Complaint on June 29, 2000 an Acknowledgment of Receipt. On the same date, the Center sent to the registrar, Bulkregister.com, a request for verification of registration data. On July 3, 2000, Bulkregister.com confirmed, inter alia, that the domain name <singaporecablevision.com> is registered with Bulkregister.com and that the Respondent, Allied Pacific Singapore Technologies Pte Ltd., is the current registrant of such domain name.
(3) Having verified that the Complaint satisfies the formal requirements of the ICANN Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules"), the Center on July 5, 2000, sent to the Respondent, with a copy to the Complainant, a notification of the administrative proceeding together with copies of the Complaint. This notification was sent by the methods required under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules. The formal date of the commencement of this administrative proceeding is July 5, 2000.
(4) On July 23, 2000, the Center received the Respondent's Response by email and on July 24, 2000 by fax, which the Center acknowledged to the parties on July 25, 2000.
(5) On August 1, 2000, after receiving his completed and signed Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Center appointed Mr. Moon Sung Lee as the single panelist (the "Presiding Panelist"). On the same date, the Center notified the parties of this appointment.
4. Factual Background
(1) The Complainant was incorporated in 1991 and since 1995, it has been the sole-provider of cable TV and broadband access services via cable modems in Singapore with 209,032 subscribers as of 1999. The Complainant has marketed and advertised its cable TV and broadband services under the name of "Singapore Cable Vision" and "SCV".
(2) The Respondent uses the website with the domain name in contention. The website displayed a greeting with the words stating that "We strongly support the following company:" followed by the Complainant’s company logo and automatically redirects Internet users to another website of the Respondent at www.marketplay.com.sg.
(3) On May 22, 2000, the Complainant demanded that the Respondent cease & desist from using the domain in contention. The Respondent removed the Complainant’s logo from the website but continued to have the automatic hyperlink to the website at www.marketplay.com.sg.
5. Parties’ Contentions
(1) Complainant contends that pursuant to Paragraphs 4. a., b., and c. of the Policy, the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the Complainant’s service mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the contested domain name, and the Respondent has used the contested domain name in bad faith.
(2) Respondent contends that it has not acted in bad faith and that it has rights and legitimate interest in the contested domain name. In line with such contention, the Respondent contends that the automatic hyperlink via singporecablesivion.com to its website should be seen as a bonus in advertising to the Complainant. Also, the Respondent asserts that the Complainant is not commonly known by the domain name <singaporecablevision.com>, but by its domain name <scv.com.sg>.
6. Discussion and Findings
(1) The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that Complainant has been marketing and advertising its cable TV services and broadband access services under the service mark "Singapore Cable Vision" and "SCV" since its incorporation in 1995. The domain name in dispute is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark.
(2) The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the contested domain name because the domain name bears no resemblance to the Respondent’s name of business and the Respondent does not provide any goods or services using the domain name. Also, the Respondent failed to demonstrate its rights to and legitimate interests in the domain name as prescribed in Paragraph 4.c. of the Policy. In this regard, the Respondent has challenged that the Complainant has not elected to obtain the domain name in dispute until the Respondent elected to display the Complainant’s company logo at the website using such domain name. However, to accept Respondent’s argument is an unreasonable attempt to support an idea that anybody who obtains a domain name is entitled to use such domain name freely even if the person obtained the domain name with specific knowledge that the domain name was the same or confusingly similar to someone else’s trademark, trade name, company logo, and etc.
(3) The evidence presented by the parties demonstrates that the registration of Respondent’s domain name, <singaporecablevision.com>, was in bad faith. It is evident that the Complaint enjoys a substantial and valuable reputation and goodwill in its business under the name of [Singapore Cable Vision or SCV] in Singapore for which the Respondent does not dispute. The Respondent’s site using the contested domain name automatically redirects the Internet users to another website of the Respondent which provides on-line stock indices trading system for commercial gain. Attempting to attract commercial gain by using the domain name which is the same or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s service mark is an evidence of registration and use of the domain name in bad faith as prescribed in Paragraph 4.b.(iv) of the Policy.
(4) In accordance, therefore, with the provisions of the Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4, it is found:
(i) that the contested domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the Complainant’s service mark,
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the contested domain name; and
(iii) that the registration and use of the domain name is in bad faith in the sense that the use amounted to an attempt intentionally to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own website by creating an automatic hyperlink at the website using the contested domain name.
7. Decision
In accordance with Paragraph 4(i) of the Dispute Resolution Policy, the Panel decides that the Respondent’s domain name <singaporecablevision.com>, should be transferred to the Complainant.
