CoryxKenshin LLC v Nano Techan

WIPO Case No. D2023-0883

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CoryxKenshin LLC v. Nano Techan

Case No. D2023-0883

1. The Parties

The Complainant is CoryxKenshin LLC, United States of America, represented by Carlson, Gaskey & Olds,

P.C., United States of America.

The Respondent is Nano Techan, Nigeria.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <coryxkenshinshop.com> (“Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc.

(the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2023. On February 28, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 28, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Withheld By Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on March 1, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 6, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 15, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 4, 2023. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on April 5, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on April 21, 2023. 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

Complainant operates a You Tube channel under the name CORYXKENSHIN (the You Tube channel). CORYXKENSHIN. The You Tube channel had 7.27 million subscribers on September 19, 2020, and 9.14 million subscribers on March 12, 2021. Per Complaint, Complainant has been using the trademark CORYXKENSHIN since at least as early as April 6, 2009. Complainant sells also CORYXKENSHIN merchandise including hats, shirts, hoodies, long sleeve shirts, sweatshirts, water bottles, and stickers through its website at “

Complainant owns trademark registrations for CORYXKENSHIN including the United States of America trademark registration No. 6,977,752 CORYXKENSHIN (word), filed on December 20, 2021, and registered on February 14, 2023, for goods in international classes 9, 14, 16, 25 9, 14, 16 and 25.

Complainant also owns the domain name registration <coryxkenshin.com> since February 29, 2016.

The Domain Name was registered on September 19, 2022, and leads to a website (the Website) purportedly selling CORYXKENSHIN merchandise and appearing as an official Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements, which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the
Domain Name:

(i)        the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii)      the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity.

page 3

The addition of the word “shop” in the Domain Name, does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8). The Panel also notes the content of the Website, which reproduces Complainant’s trademark and

logos.

The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the
comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (Rexel Developpements SAS v.
Zhan Yequn, WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,

WIPO Case No. D2002-0122).

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the
Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i)        before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii)       Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)      Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with
respect to the Domain Name. As per Complainant, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain
Name.

Respondent has not demonstrated any preparations to use, or has not used the Domain Name or a trademark corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrated, the Domain Name was used to host the Website to
impersonate Complainant and attempt to mislead consumers into thinking that the goods purportedly offered
for sale on the Website originate from Complainant. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of
goods nor a legitimate interest of Respondent (Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, WIPO Case

No. D2015-0502).

A distributor or reseller can be making a bona fide offering of goods and thus have a legitimate interest in a
domain name only if the following cumulative requirements are met (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.1: (i) respondent must actually be offering
the goods at issue; (ii) respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; (iii) the site
must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and

(iv) respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark.)

These requirements are not fulfilled in the present case.

page 4

The Domain Name falsely suggests that the Website is an official site of Complainant or of an entity affiliated to or endorsed by Complainant. The Website extensively reproduces, without authorization by Complainant, Complainant’s trademark without any disclaimer of association (or lack thereof) with Complainant.

This, along with the fact that the Domain Name is registered with a privacy shield service, speaks against any rights or legitimate interests held by Respondent (Ann Summers Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Mingchun Chen, WIPO Case No. D2018-0625; Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records, WIPO Case No. D2017-2533).

The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i)        circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii)       that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)      that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)      that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith.

Because Complainant’s mark had been used and registered by Complainant before the Domain Name
registration, and noting the content of the Website, it is clear that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in
mind when registering the Domain Name (Tudor Games, Inc. v. Domain Hostmaster, Customer ID No.
09382953107339 dba Whois Privacy Services Pty Ltd / Domain Administrator, Vertical Axis Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2014-1754; Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and Christiandior.net, WIPO Case
No. D2000-0226).

Furthermore, the content of the Website gives the impression that it originates from Complainant, prominently displaying Complainant’s trademark, thereby giving the false impression that the Website emanates from Complainant. This further supports registration in bad faith reinforcing the likelihood of confusion, as Internet users are likely to consider the Domain Name as in some way endorsed by or connected with Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).

page 5

The above further indicates that Respondent knew of Complainant and chose the Domain Name with
knowledge of Complainant and its industry (Safepay Malta Limited v. ICS Inc., WIPO Case
No. D2015-0403).

As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name is employed to host a Website which appeared falsely to be that of Complainant. The Domain Name has been operated by intentionally creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark and business. This further supports the finding of bad faith use (Arkema France v. Aaron Blaine, supra; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Priscilla Quaiotti Passos, WIPO Case No. D2011-0388; and WIPO Overview 3.0, sections 3.1.4 and 3.2.1).

Last, the Panel considers also the apparent concealment of the Domain Name holder’s identity through use
of a privacy shield at the time of filing the Complaint, to be further indicative of bad faith (BHP Billiton

Innovation Pty Ltd v. Domains By Proxy LLC / Douglass Johnson, WIPO Case No. D2016-0364).

Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the

Domain Name in bad faith.

Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)

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 Domain Name, <coryxkenshinshop.com> be transferred to Complainant.

/Marina Perraki/
Marina Perraki
Sole Panelist
Date: May 5, 2023