WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Telia AB v. Alex Ewaldsson and Birgitta Ewaldsson
Case No. D2000-0599
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Telia AB, a corporation organized under the laws of Sweden, having its principal place of business at 123 86 Farsta, Sweden. The Respondents are Alex Ewaldsson and Birgitta Ewaldsson, individuals resident at Box 1380, 172 27 Sundbyberg, Sweden.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
Each of the 244 domain names are:
No
Domain Names
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42
#43
#44
#45
#46
#47
#48
#49
#50
#51
#52
#53
#54
#55
#56
#57
#58
#59
#60
#61
#62
#63
#64
#65
#66
#67
#68
#69
#70
#71
#72
#73
#74
#75
#76
#77
#78
#79
#80
#81
#82
#83
#84
#85
#86
#87
#88
#89
#90
#91
#92
#93
#94
#95
#96
#97
#98
#99
#100
#101
#102
#103
#104
#105
#106
#107
#108
#109
#110
#111
#112
#113
#114
#115
#116
#117
#118
#119
#120
#121
#122
#123
#124
#125
#126
#127
#128
#129
#130
#131
#132
#133
#134
#135
#136
#137
#138
#139
#140
#141
#142
#143
#144
#145
#146
#147
#148
#149
#150
#151
#152
#153
#154
#155
#156
#157
#158
#159
#160
#161
#162
#163
#164
#165
#166
#167
#168
#169
#170
#171
#172
#173
#174
#175
#176
#177
#178
#179
#180
#181
#182
#183
#184
#185
#186
#187
#188
#189
#190
#191
#192
#193
#194
#195
#196
#197
#198
#199
#200
#201
#202
#203
#204
#205
#206
#207
#208
#209
#210
#211
#212
#213
#214
#215
#216
#217
#218
#219
#220
#221
#222
#223
#224
#225
#226
#227
#228
#229
#230
#231
#232
#233
#234
#235
#236
#237
#238
#239
#240
#241
#242
#243
#244
The domain names at issue except #2 are registered with Network Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.
3. Procedural History
A Complaint was submitted electronically to the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "WIPO Center") on June 14, 2000 and in hardcopy on June 16, 2000. An Acknowledgment of Receipt was sent by the WIPO Center to the Complainant, dated June 15, 2000.
On June 15, 2000 a Request for Registrar Verification was transmitted to the Registrar, NSI, requesting it to:
(1) confirm that a copy of the Complaint was sent to the Registrar by the Complainant, as required by WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(b);
(2) confirm that the domain names at issue are registered with NSI;
(3) confirm that the Respondents are the current registrants of the domain names;
(4) provide the full contact details (i.e., postal address(es), telephone number(s), facsimile number(s), e-mail address(es)) available in the Registrar�s WHOIS database for the registrants of the disputed domain name, the technical contact, the administrative contact and the billing contact;
(5) confirm that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy applies to the domain name(s);
(6) indicate the current status of the domain names.
On June 23, 2000 and on July 3, 2000 NSI confirmed by e-mail that NSI was in receipt of the Complaint sent to NSI by the Complainant, the domain names at issue, except the domain name , were registered with NSI and that the Respondents were the current registrants of the names. The Registrar also forwarded the requested WHOIS details, confirmed that the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy was in effect and stated that the domain names were either in "Active" status or on "Hold".
Effective January 1, 2000 NSI adopted the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on August 26, 1999 (the "Policy"). There is no evidence that the Respondents ever requested that the domain name at issue be deleted from the domain name database. Accordingly, the Respondents is bound by the provisions of Policy.
A Formal Requirements Compliance Checklist was completed by the assigned WIPO Center Case Administrator on July 3, 2000. The Panel has independently determined and agrees with the assessment of the WIPO Center that the Complaint is in formal compliance with the requirements of the Policy, the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, as approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (the "Uniform Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy, in effect as of December 1, 1999 (the "WIPO Supplemental Rules"). The required fees for a single-member Panel were paid on time and in the required amount by the Complainant.
No formal deficiencies having been recorded, on July 4, 2000 a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification") was transmitted to the Respondents (with copies to the Complainant, NSI and ICANN), setting a deadline of July 23, 2000 by which the Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint. The Commencement Notification was transmitted to the Respondents by e-mail to the e-mail addresses indicated in the Complaint and specified in NSI�s WHOIS confirmation, as well as to postmaster@- addresses; no e-mail addresses were found at any web page examined in connection with the disputed domain names. In addition, the Complaint was sent by telefax and express courier to all available postal addresses.
On July 24, 2000 having received no Response from the designated Respondents, the WIPO Center transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondents Default. On July 26, 2000 the WIPO Center issued to the parties a Notification of Appointment of Administrative Panel and Projected Decision Date. This Notification informed the parties that the Administrative Panel would be comprised of a single Panelist, Mr Jonas Gulliksson. While on July 27,2000 there was an e-mail communication from Alex Ewaldsson, one of the Respondents, no response was received by the Center or the Panel to date.
The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Uniform Rules and WIPO Supplemental Rules.
The Administrative Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Uniform Rules, the WIPO Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of any Response from the Respondents.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant and its Registered Trademarks and Domain Names
The Complainant�s business was originally operated directly by the Swedish State as a public service corporation; Televerket. In 1993 the Swedish Government decided to transform Televerket to a state-owned public company, Telia AB. The Complainant Telia AB is the parent company within the Telia-group. Telia is today the leading telecommunications company in Sweden and a market leader in mobile communications, broadband/Internet services and IP-based network service. The Telia-group provides a comprehensive range of products and services in the fields of IT and telecommunications in over 30 countries worldwide. These include telecom, data, multimedia and information services.
The Complainant has registered the trademark "TELIA" for data- and telecommunication products and services in more than 30 countries worldwide, covering goods and services in the International Classes 9, 38 and 42. Registration certificates from the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, Annex 4 and the Swedish Patent- and Registration Authority, Annex 5 and Annex 6 to the Complaint. Other important jurisdictions where "TELIA" has been registered are the Nordic countries, the Baltic states, Benelux, Germany, the United Kingdom, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Poland, Russia, Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Singapore, Taiwan, China and Japan.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
The Respondents have registered a considerable amount of domain names including the registered trademark "TELIA", under the TLDs: �.com�, �.net� and �org�. The TELIA-trademarks were registered before the Domain Names were registered.
The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the registered trademark "TELIA". The Domain Names do substantially replicate the trademark "TELIA" and there is a clear connection and association to the Complainant�s trade mark as well as trade name. The Domain Names consequently consist of "TELIA" and the following words are either names of subsidiaries or services of the Complainant or neutral additions to this trademark, as generic words/general nouns. The ability of these words to distinguish the Domain Names from the trademark of the Complainant is limited.
"TELIA" must be considered as a well-known trademark in Sweden as well as abroad due to extensive registrations and worldwide use.
As far as the Complainant is aware the domain names are not resolved to any web site or any other on-line service. If that would be the case someone seeking or coming upon a web site corresponding to any of the domain names would naturally assume that that was the web site of the Complainant. The belief of the Respondents that these domain names are interesting for the Complainant and its subsidiaries is also the reason why the Respondents have registered the domain names.
There is no relation between the Respondents and the Complainant. The Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant nor have they obtained any authorization to use the Complainant�s mark. The Respondents should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names that are the subject of the complaint.
The Respondents are not commonly known by the name "TELIA" or any name that corresponds to the Domain Names. The Respondents have not provided any bona fide services or goods related to the Domain Names.
The Respondents have deliberately registered the Domain Names on account of their similarity and connection to "TELIA". The Domain Names have been registered for the sole purpose of selling these, primarily to the Complainant and its subsidiaries. According to an e-mail sent by Alex Ewaldsson on March 31, 2000 he declares that he has registered more than 400, what he calls, "Telia-domains". Alex Ewaldsson claims that he has registered almost all subsidiaries within the Telia-group, which he offers to sell. Normally he charges USD 14.500 for one domain name, Annex 7 to the Complaint.
The Whois records of the Domain Names mention the word "domain4sale". The web site also advertises numerous Internet domain names for sale, Annex 8 to the Complaint, which is extracted from the web site. These facts and the substantial amount of registrations made also reveal that the Respondents are dealers in domain names.
Hence, it is evident that the Respondents are aware of the infringement, that the Respondents have no legitimate interest in the domain names and that the registrations of the domain names have been done in bad faith.
Finally, the Complainant has requested the Administrative Panel to issue a decision by which the contested domain names shall be transferred to Complainant.
B. Respondents
Respondents have not contested the allegations of the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
According to Paragraph 15 (a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide a complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
The parties are domiciled in Sweden. This means that in addition to the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules, applicable Swedish principles of law would apply as well.
Domain name No. 2
The Complainant has alleged that the Respondents have registered the domain name . The Registrar has however in its Verification Response stated that is not registered.
Consequently, the Panel cannot meet the Complainant�s request for transfer of the domain name .
Domain names No. 1 and 3 - 244
Paragraph 4 (a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
1) that the domain name registered by the Respondents is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,
2) that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Each domain name in issue incorporates the dominating term "telia". Therefore, the domain names must be considered as confusingly similar to the TELIA mark.
The prerequisites in the Policy, Paragraph 4 (a) (i) and (ii) are therefore fulfilled.
Paragraph 4 (a) (iii) of the Policy further provides registration and use in bad faith.
Paragraph 4 (b) regulates the kind of evidence that is required.
From the Complainant's prior trademark rights in TELIA and the identity between the dominating element TELIA, the trademark/corporate name and the domain names at issue, it is obvious that the Respondents would not have selected the names without first having noticed the Complainant's rights to the trademark and its wide reputation in the word TELIA. Furthermore, from the fact that the Respondents have offered to transfer the domain names at issue to the Complainant for USD 14,500.00 per domain name, it is obvious that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
Consequently, all the prerequisites for cancellation or transfer of the domain names according to Paragraph 4 (i) of the Rules are fulfilled.
The Complainant has requested transfer of the domain names.
7. Decision
This Panel decides that domain name No. 2,, shall not be transferred to the Complainant since this domain name is not registered by the Respondents.
In view of the above circumstances and facts the Panel decides, that the domain names No. 1 and 3 - 244 registered by the Respondents are identical or confusingly similar to the trademark and service mark in which the Complainant has rights, and that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names, and that Respondents' domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy, the Panel requires that the registration of the following domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
No
Domain Names
#1
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
#10
#11
#12
#13
#14
#15
#16
#17
#18
#19
#20
#21
#22
#23
#24
#25
#26
#27
#28
#29
#30
#31
#32
#33
#34
#35
#36
#37
#38
#39
#40
#41
#42
#43
#44
#45
#46
#47
#48
#49
#50
#51
#52
#53
#54
#55
#56
#57
#58
#59
#60
#61
#62
#63
#64
#65
#66
#67
#68
#69
#70
#71
#72
#73
#74
#75
#76
#77
#78
#79
#80
#81
#82
#83
#84
#85
#86
#87
#88
#89
#90
#91
#92
#93
#94
#95
#96
#97
#98
#99
#100
#101
#102
#103
#104
#105
#106
#107
#108
#109
#110
#111
#112
#113
#114
#115
#116
#117
#118
#119
#120
#121
#122
#123
#124
#125
#126
#127
#128
#129
#130
#131
#132
#133
#134
#135
#136
#137
#138
#139
#140
#141
#142
#143
#144
#145
#146
#147
#148
#149
#150
#151
#152
#153
#154
#155
#156
#157
#158
#159
#160
#161
#162
#163
#164
#165
#166
#167
#168
#169
#170
#171
#172
#173
#174
#175
#176
#177
#178
#179
#180
#181
#182
#183
#184
#185
#186
#187
#188
#189
#190
#191
#192
#193
#194
#195
#196
#197
#198
#199
#200
#201
#202
#203
#204
#205
#206
#207
#208
#209
#210
#211
#212
#213
#214
#215
#216
#217
#218
#219
#220
#221
#222
#223
#224
#225
#226
#227
#228
#229
#230
#231
#232
#233
#234
#235
#236
#237
#238
#239
#240
#241
#242
#243
#244
Jonas Gulliksson
Presiding Panelist
Dated: August 8, 2000
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy