Nissan.ai domain name prosecution case won, domain name transferred unconditionally!

Nissan Automotive Europe SAS has filed a dispute resolution proceeding (UDRP) regarding the domain name nissan.ai against US-based Orbix Technologies. Below is the key information about the case and the proceedings.

NISSAN: is a Japanese multinational automaker listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange.In the first half of 2020, Nissan's Renault Nissan and Mitsubishi alliance ranked third in the world in terms of sales.Nissan was ranked 116th in the Fortune 500 ranking for 2021.

The Parties and the Disputed Domain Names

Complainant (Complainant): Nissan Motor Europe, on behalf of CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

Respondent: Orbix Technologies.

Disputed domain name: nissan.ai, registered to 1API GmbH.

Procedural History

1. Complaint Submission and Registrar Verification:

On April 15, 2024, the Complaint was submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center.

On April 17, 2024, the registrar confirmed the registrant information for the disputed domain name.

On April 18, 2024, the Complainant submitted a revised Complaint.

2. Status of the defense:

May 13, 2024 was the deadline for replies and the Respondent did not submit any.

On May 20, 2024, the Center notified Respondent that he had defaulted.

3.Appointment of Panelists:

On May 29, 2024, Mario Soerensen Garcia was appointed as the sole expert in this case.

Factual Background and Parties' Contentions

1.Complainant's Claims:

The Disputed Domain Name is identical or similar to the Nissan trademark held by the Complainant and is likely to cause confusion.

The Respondent has not demonstrated a legitimate right or interest in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a blank page with no actual content or readiness to demonstrate bona fide use.

2. Respondent's Answer:

The Respondent has not provided any defense or evidence to support its rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

Discussion and Conclusion

1. Identical or Confusingly Similar:

The Panel confirms the Complainant's registration of the mark "NISSAN" and finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the mark in violation of Article 4(a)(i) of the UDRP Policy.

2. Rights or Legitimate Interests:

Notwithstanding Respondent's failure to file a Response, Complainant has provided prima facie evidence that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Under UDRP practice, this shifts the burden to the Respondent, who has failed to provide counter-evidence that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

3. Bad faith registration and use:

The Panel considered the distinctiveness of the "NISSAN" mark, the fact that the disputed domain name resolved to a blank page, and the Respondent's failure to respond. Based on the principle of passive holding and the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Decision

Based on the foregoing analysis and findings, the Panel orders the transfer of the Disputed Domain Name, nissan.ai, to the Complainant, Nissan Motor Europe, pursuant to Article 4(i) of the UDRP Policy and Rule 15 of the Rules.

This decision emphasizes the core principles of the domain name dispute resolution process, including the protection of well-known trademark owners from bad faith registrations and uses, and highlights the adverse consequences of the Respondent's failure to effectively defend itself.