WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Securon Manufacturing Limited v. Yungu Jo

Case No. D2015-0151

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Securon Manufacturing Limited of Amersham, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Bromhead Johnson, the United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Yungu Jo of Seoul, the Republic of Korea.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <securon.com> is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2015. On January 30, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 2, 2015, the Registrar 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 verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), 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 February 10, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for a response was March 2, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2015.

The Center appointed Stefan Naumann as the sole panelist in this matter on March 12, 2015. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a U.K. company that designs, manufactures, tests and approves safety devices such as seat belts and harnesses. The evidence shows that it owns European Community, UK, US and international word marks for the terms SECURON and SEC-URON. The earliest trademarks were filed in 1976, the European Community trademark claims seniority in a number of European member states going back as far as 1976, and the U.S. trademark claims first use as far back as 1980. The marks are currently in effect according to the print-outs from the trademark databases and copies of documents that were submitted by Complainant.

Complainant also registered the term “Securon” as part of its domain name on October 16, 1997.

Respondent registered the domain name <securon.com> on December 31, 2005.

The evidence shows that the website that appears at “www.securon.com” is a page with sponsored links that lead to websites that offer seat belts, seat belt repairs, webbing, seat belt extenders. The web page prominently features an offer to sell the disputed domain name itself by providing a hyperlink accompanied by the following text: “click here to buy Securon.com – this DOMAIN FOR SALE - Make Offer to [email protected]”.

The evidence shows that on January 14, 2015, a person named Michael Spencer made three consecutive offers to buy the <securon.com> domain name and then contacted the Respondent requesting a quote for the transfer of the domain name. Respondent replied the same day offering to sell the domain name for USD 20,000.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that its SECURON and SEC-URON marks have been in use for nearly 40 years, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, that the domain name resolves to a parking page and that no goods or services are being offered in good faith, that Respondent was aware of Complainant’s marks when it used the term “Securon” on a pay-per-click page linking to identical, similar and/or competing products, that Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name for more than out-of-pocket costs, and that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, the Complainant must demonstrate that all three elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(ii) the Respondent must have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name must have been registered and used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name combines the term “Securon” with the gTLD “.com”. The addition of the gTLD does not affect the fact that the disputed domain name reproduces Complainant’s SECURON marks. The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks since consumers may expect to land on a website of the Complainant when typing in Complainant’s trademark SECURON, notably since Complainant also uses the term “Securon” as domain name for a website on which it presents its products and services.

The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the purposes of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has chosen not to reply to the Complaint. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <securon.com>, and finds no indication in the evidence that the Respondent could have claimed rights or legitimate interests of its own in the term “Securon”. Since the Respondent has no permission from the Complainant, its use of the disputed domain name is without rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name nine years before the Complainant filed its UDRP complaint. The Complainant does not explain or address its substantial delay in contacting the Respondent and filing a Complaint.

A number of UDRP decisions have addressed the issue of whether delay in bringing a complaint may serve to prevent a complainant from prevailing (The Hebrew University of Jerusalem v. Alberta Hot Rods,WIPO Case No. D2002-0616, (<alberteinstein.com>); Tom Cruise v. Network Operations Center / Alberta Hot Rods,WIPO Case No. D2006-0560, (<tomcruise.com>); Tax Analysts v. eCorp, WIPO Case No. D2007-0040, (<taxanalyst.com>); Francine Drescher v. Stephen Gregory, WIPO Case No. D2008-1825, (<frandrescher.com>); The Jennifer Lopez Foundation v. Jeremiah Tieman, Jennifer Lopez Net, Jennifer Lopez, Vaca Systems LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-0057, (<jenniferlopez.net>); Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas v. FanMail.com, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2009-1139, (<razorbacks.com>); Mile, Inc. v. Michael Burg, WIPO Case No. D2010-2011, (<lionsden.com>)).

The Panel considers that the Complainant’s delay may be relevant to determining whether Respondent may have acquired a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. In the present matter, the evidence submitted by Complainant shows that nine years after registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has linked the domain name to a pay-per-click page that itself links to third party websites that offer identical, similar and/or competing products, none of which can create a right or legitimate interest for the Respondent within the meaning of the UDRP. The Respondent’s only other use of the disputed domain name is to offer it for sale.

The Panel considers that in the present case the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Here, the Respondent’s use of a parked webpage as described above indicates that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent has chosen not to submit any arguments or evidence to the contrary, or to contest the Complainant’s claims.

In view of the above, the Panel also finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

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 <securon.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Stefan Naumann
Sole Panelist
Date: March 24, 2015