WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Telia AB v Domain Research and Sales
Case No. D2002-0136
1. The Parties
Complainant is Telia AB, represented by Joanna Castenfors, Telia AB Corporate Legal Affairs, SE-123 86, Farsta, Sweden, hereinafter the "Complainant".
Respondent is Domain Research and Sales, Vytauto, Mail Box # 60, Radviliskis, LT-5120, Lithuania, hereinafter the "Respondent".
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is .
The registrar for the disputed domain name is Dotster Inc., 11807 NE 99th Street, Suite 1100, Vancouver, WA, 98682, United States of America.
3. Procedural History
The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:
(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO") on February 11, 2002. On February 26, 2002, WIPO sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint to the Complainant.
(b) On February 14, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, with the Registrar�s Verification received by WIPO February 26, 2002, confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through Dotster Inc.
(c) On February 27, 2002, Complainant submitted an Amendment to the Complaint.
(d) On February 28, 2002, WIPO transmitted Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding in Case No. D2002-0136 to the Respondent, after having satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("the Policy"), the Rules for the Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for the Policy ("the Supplemental Rules").
(e) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, WIPO issued a Notification of Respondent Default on March 21, 2002.
(f) In view of the Complainant�s designation of a single panelist, WIPO invited Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as a panelist. Having received his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence of April 2, 2002, WIPO formally appointed him as Sole Panelist on March 12, 2002. On April 5, 2002, WIPO transmitted the case file to the Administrative Panel. The parties were notified of the Appointment of Administrative Panel on April 8, 2002.
(g) The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Administrative Panel shall issue its decision based on the complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English.
4. Factual Background
After the Complainant�s assertions, supported by the documents enclosed as annexes to the complaint, and undisputed by Respondent because of its default, the Panel finds the following:
Complainant is the leading telecommunications company and market leader within mobile communications, broadband/Internet services and IP (Internet Protocol)-based network services in Sweden. The Telia-group is furthermore the provider of a comprehensive range of products and services in the fields of IT and telecommunications, and the owner of trademark registrations for TELIA in more than 30 other countries worldwide, hereunder the United States of America and Lithuania.
The Respondent has registered the domain name .
5. Parties� Contentions
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
The domain name at issue is identical to Complainant�s trademark.
The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. Respondent has nothing to do with Complainant or Complainant�s business, and there are no indications that Respondent would have bona fide interests in relation to the trademark TELIA.
The domain name was and is registered and used in bad faith.
TELIA is a well-known mark, and Respondent is evidently aware that the domain name corresponds to this trademark.
It is likely to believe that the Respondent deliberately registered the domain name at issue on account of the identity to the well-known trademark TELIA, primarily to attract Internet users to Respondents commercial web site .
The Complainant requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the contested domain name must be transferred to the Complainant.
5.2 Respondent
The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is thus in default. Respondent has neither made any submissions after the Notification of Respondent Default.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three tests which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The Complainant must satisfy that:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of such domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
6.1 Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant�s trade mark TELIA.
6.2 Rights or legitimate interest in the domain name
The Panel has considered the allegation by the Compliant as to the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the domain name at issue, including the Complainant�s contention about the lack of any legitimate intellectual property right of the Respondent to the contested domain name. As a result of default, these allegations have not been contested by the Respondent.
The Panel has visited the web site of the Respondent in order to investigate whether there could be found any evidence as to Respondents rights or legitimacy of interest with regard to the contested domain name. The Panel did not find any such evidence.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the contested domain name.
6.3 Registration and use in bad faith
Complainant�s allegations and evidence with regard to the Respondent�s registration and use of the domain name in bad faith has been considered by the Panel. By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances which could demonstrate that it did not register and use the Domain Name in bad faith.
Complainant has put forward evidence that his trade marks are well known, and the Panel finds that these in all probability have been known to Respondent when registering the contested domain name.
The web site corresponding to the contested domain name features commercial services, such as an on-line casino. In its complaint, Complainant also adduced evidence of several hyper-links to pornographic material from Respondent�s web site, which have been removed after the proceedings were initiated by Complainant.
Respondent�s registration of the domain name at issue, and continuous use of the same, thus appears to be an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site , by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant�s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of this web site.
These are circumstances which constitutes evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
7. Decision
The Panel has found that the domain name is identical to a trade mark held by the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in said domain name. The Panel has further found that the domain name has been registered in bad faith, and that it has been and is being used in bad faith.
Therefore, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel decides to request that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant Telia AB.
Peter G. Nitter
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 26, 2002
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy