WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

SoftBank Group Corp. v. Timothy Bryan

Case No. D2019-1992

1. The Parties

The Complainant is SoftBank Group Corp., Japan, represented by Mori Hamada & Matsumoto Law Firm, Japan.

The Respondent is Timothy Bryan, United States of America (“US”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <softbank-jp.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 15, 2019. On August 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 15, 2019, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 20, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 9, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2019.

The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 2019. 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 in this proceeding, SoftBank Group Corp., was founded in 1981, and since that time has, along with its subsidiaries (1,302 as of the end of March 2019) and affiliates (423 as of the end of March 2019), been prominent in the development of the digital information business in Japan and elsewhere in the world. Its services include e-commerce, e-finance, media marketing and broadcasting, with 76,866 employees on a consolidated basis, and consolidated net sales of JPY 9.6022 trillion as of the end of March 2019.

Masayoshi Son is the founder of the SoftBank group companies and currently holds the position of Chairman & CEO of the Complainant.

The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the SOFTBANK mark, which enjoy comprehensive protection through many registrations thereof worldwide.

The Complainant is inter alia the owner of:

US Registration No. 4718589 SOFTBANK (device), applied for on September 26, 2013, granted on April 14, 2015;
Japan Registration No. 1858515 SOFTBANK applied for on January 24, 1984, granted on April 23, 1986;
United Kingdom Registration No. 2040353 SOFTBANK applied for on October 6, 1995, granted on December 6, 1996;
German Registration No. 39538464 SOFTBANK applied for on September 20, 1995, granted on June 5, 1996;
Australian Registration No. 1625363 SOFTBANK, registered on September 5, 2013;
Canadian Registration No. TMA724157 SOFTBANK applied for on March 5, 2001, granted on September 22, 2008.

Moreover, the Complainant is also the owner of, among others, the following domain names that include the “SoftBank” sign, such as: <softbank.co.jp>, <softbank.jp>, and <softbankgroup.com>.

The disputed domain name <softbank-jp.com> was registered on August 6, 2019. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SOFTBANK registered trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests whatsoever with respect to the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, the Complainant has documented that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send fraudulent emails purporting to be from the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

In order for the Complainant to obtain a transfer of the disputed domain name, paragraphs 4(a)(i) – (iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that:

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

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the SOFTBANK trademark.

The disputed domain name consists of the SOFTBANK trademark with the addition of a “-” and of the geographical code for Japan, “jp”. This Panel agrees with the Complainant’s assertion that these additions in the disputed domain name are irrelevant in countering the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s SOFTBANK trademark and the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the SOFTBANK trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Softbank” or by any similar name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, nor any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to send emails to third parties purporting to be from the Chairman & CEO of the Complainant. The Respondent has not come forward with any explanation that demonstrates any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not formally replied to the Complainant’s contentions, claiming any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith.

The Complainant has documented that the Respondent, in pretending to be the Chairman & CEO of the Complainant, has used the disputed domain name to create a misleading email address from which emails were sent to the CEO of an investee company of the Complainant and to CEOs of other investee companies of SoftBank Vision Fund, which is the Complainant’s affiliated investment fund.

Indeed, with these emails the Respondent attempted to deceive the CEOs of those companies in order to obtain funds through bank transfers.

These emails are, in the Panel’s view, sufficient to show that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and of the SOFTBANK mark and intentionally intended to create an association with the Complainant and its business at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under the Policy. The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to an active website does not preclude a finding of bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds, on the basis of the evidence presented, that the Respondent registered and is using 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 <softbank-jp.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Fabrizio Bedarida
Sole Panelist
Date: September 20, 2019