Recent Case Notes & Commentary

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd v. Seung Nam Kim

A case to cite on generic word added to trademark and bad faith because of selling goods, whether competing or genuine.


Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd  v. Seung Nam Kim, KR-0600007, November 16 2006

Domain name at issue: <samsungsecurity.com>


Facts:

The Complainant is the holding company of the Samsung Group, an internationally well known organisation and owns trademark and service mark registrations for the marks ‘SAMSUNG’ as well as the SAMSUNG logo in Korea and abroad. The Respondent’s site contained many links comprising the name “Samsung”, and led visitors to sale of items such as cameras and security monitors.


Complainant wins. Disputed domain name transferred from Respondent to Complainant.


Decision Summary:

A) Similarity between the Trademark and the Domain name Disputed

‘SAMSUNG’ was dominant portion in the domain name and the mark.  SECURITY’ was a non-distinctive element of the domain name as it related generically to security-related goods or services. Therefore the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s cited mark were identical and confusingly similar.


B) Rights or Legitimate Interest of the Respondent 

No rights or legitimate interest because the Respondent had not submitted a Response to the contentions of the Complainant.


C) Registered and Used in Bad Faith 

The Respondent used the domain name to sell security and electronic products using the name SAMSUNG. This was bad faith as it diverted Internet users looking for SAMSUNG security products to make profit from such traffic.