About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

CoryxKenshin LLC v. Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD

Case No. D2021-3978

1. The Parties

Complainant is CoryxKenshin LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Carlson, Gaskey & Olds, P.C., United States.

Respondent is Domain Administrator, Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, Panama.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <corykenshin.com> is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited dba Register Matrix (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2021. On November 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 2, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 13, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 2, 2022. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 11, 2022.

The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on January 25, 2022. 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 is a company organized under the laws of the United States that is active, inter alia, in the online fashion and video gaming industry.

Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of the national United States trademark (word mark) CORYXKENSHIN, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registration number: 6,482,025, filing date: August 3, 2020, registration date: September 14, 2021, with first use in commerce on April 6, 2009.

Moreover, Complainant has demonstrated to own a YouTube channel named “CoryxKenshin” created on April 26, 2009 that provides on-line videos and includes a store offering for sale Complainant’s products, and since February 29, 2016, Complainant has owned the domain name <coryxkenshin.com> which redirects to Complainant’s official website at “www.coryxkenshin.com”, promoting Complainant’s fashion products for online sale.

Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is a privacy service located in Panama who registered the disputed domain name on May 15, 2020, and offers the very same on the Internet for online sale, and redirects to a parking page with various pay-per-click links.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends to have been commercially active since at least as early as 2009, when Complainant first created a YouTube channel providing for online videos in association with Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark and fashion products promoted thereunder. The number of Complainant’s subscribers to this YouTube channel has significantly increased over the past three years, strengthening Complainant’s trademark rights as consumers became familiar with the CORYXKENSHIN trademark. In September 2020, Complainant’s YouTube channel had 7.27 million subscribers, adding up to 9.14 million subscribers in March 2021 and lately 11.5 million subscribers in November 2021.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark, as it includes the latter in its entirety, with the addition of the middle letter “x” in Complainant’s trademark. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is using the confusingly similar disputed domain name without Complainant’s permission to do so; (2) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and (3) Complainant owns registered and common law rights in the CORYXKENSHIN trademark. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) Respondent does not offer any goods or services under the disputed domain name, but has simply put it on the Internet for sale; (2) given the confusing similarity between Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark and the disputed domain name, it is difficult to infer any legitimate use of the latter by Respondent; and (3) offering the disputed domain name on the Internet for sale shows that Respondent knew or should have known that someone with rights in a name related to the disputed domain name would have been interested therein.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:

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

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

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

Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name <corykenshin.com> is confusingly similar to the CORYXKENSHIN trademark in which Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name incorporates the CORYXKENSHIN trademark almost entirely with a misspelling caused by simply omitting the middle letter “x”. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that where a domain name incorporates a trademark in its entirety, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). The fact that the disputed domain name thereby shows no letter “x” which leads to a misspelling of Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark is not at all inconsistent with such finding of confusing similarity. Misspelled or typo-squatted domain names are, on the contrary, intended to be confusing so that Internet users, who unwittingly make common type errors, will enter the typo-squatted domain name instead of the correct spelled trademark (see e.g., National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues, Inc, d/b/a Minor League Baseball v. John Zuccarini, WIPO Case No. D2002‑1011).

In this context, the Panel has certainly realized that Complainant’s national United States trademark (word mark) CORYXKENSHIN (USPTO No. 6,482,025) was filed on August 3, 2020, and formally registered on September 14, 2021, whereas the disputed domain name was registered already on May 15, 2020. However, the fact that a domain name may have been registered before a complainant has acquired trademark rights does not by itself preclude a complainant’s standing to file a UDRP case, nor a panel’s finding of identity or confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP, but may need to be addressed in connection with the finding whether or not a respondent acted in bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.1.3).

Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent obviously has not been authorized to use Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the terms “Coryxkenshin” or “Corykenshin” on its own. Finally, Respondent so far obviously has neither used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose, but merely has offered it for online sale and for a parking page offering pay-per-click links. Given that the disputed domain name consists entirely of Complainant’s somewhat fanciful CORYXKENSHIN trademark together with a deliberate misspelling constituting typo-squatting by omitting the middle letter “x”, such use of the disputed domain name does not represent a bona fide offering because it capitalizes on the reputation and goodwill of Complainant’s trademark. (see section 2.9. of WIPO 3.0)

Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Having done so, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating such rights or legitimate interests (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has not submitted a Response, it has not met that burden.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

Registering and using the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s fanciful CORYXKENSHIN trademark, thereby including a deliberate misspelling constituting typo-squatting of such trademark by omitting the middle letter “x”, for no other reason but to offer the disputed domain name for online sale and for a parking page with pay-per-click links, is a clear indication that Respondent either (1) registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant being the owner of the CORYXKENSHIN trademark for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or (2) intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s own website and online offer by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(i) as well as 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

In connection with this finding, the Panel has well taken into consideration that Complainant’s national United States trademark (word mark) CORYXKENSHIN (USPTO No. 6,482, 025) was filed on August 3, 2020, and formally registered on September 14, 2021, whereas the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent already on May 15, 2020. At the same time, it must be noted that such CORYXKENSHIN trademark was registered on the grounds of an evidenced use by Complainant in the United States commerce already since as early as April 6, 2009, which is well before the registration of the disputed domain name took place. Further, Complainant has demonstrated to own a YouTube channel named “CoryxKenshin” created on April 26, 2009, that provides on-line videos and includes a store offering for sale Complainant’s products, and has registered the domain name <coryxkenshin.com> since February 29, 2016, to promote Complainant’s business. In addition, no matter where Respondent is located and to what extent Complainant’s CORYXKENSHIN trademark may have acquired reputation even outside of the United States, the fact that the disputed domain name includes a deliberate misspelling of Complainant’s fanciful CORYXKENSHIN trademark and is used for no other purpose but to be offered for online sale and for a parking page with pay-per-click links, leaves no serious doubts to this Panel that Respondent was well aware of Complainant’s (yet unregistered but well in use) CORYXKENSHIN trademark when registering the disputed domain name, which is why the timing of trademark and domain name registration in the case at hand is not in contrast to find for a bad faith acting on the part of Respondent. Moreover, it also carries weight in the eyes of the Panel that Respondent obviously provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs database for the disputed domain name since, according to the online courier tracking record, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated December 13, 2021 could not be delivered. This fact at least throws a light on Respondent’s behavior which supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.

Therefore, the Panel holds that Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by 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 disputed domain name <corykenshin.com> be transferred to Complainant.

Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: February 8, 2022

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/