WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deutsche Telekom AG v. D
Case No. D2002-0164
1. The Parties
Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, represented by Lovells Boesebeck Droste, Att: Dr. Matthias Koch, Marstallstr. 8, 80539 Munich, Germany, hereinafter the "Complainant".
Respondent is D, Att: Salvador Rosillo, 78 Reade Street, NYC, Postal Code 10007-1848, United States America, hereinafter the "Respondent".
2. Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name in dispute is , hereinafter the "Domain Name".
The registrar for the disputed domain name is eNom, Inc, 1677 NE 80th Street, Suite # 100 Redmont, WA 98052, United States 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 19, 2002. On February 21, 2002, WIPO sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the Complaint to the Complainant.
(b) On February 25, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification to the registrar, with the Registrar�s Verification received by WIPO February 25, 2002, confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through eNom, Inc.
(c) On February 27, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Notification of the Complaint and Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding 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 Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the Rules"), and WIPO�s Supplemental Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, ("the Supplemental Rules").
(d) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, WIPO issued a Notification of Respondent Default on March 21, 2002.
(e) 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 May 7, 2002, WIPO formally appointed him as Sole Panelist. The parties were notified of the Appointment of Administrative Panel on May 7, 2002.
(f) 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
Complainant is a leading telecommunications company worldwide. The Complainant has established presence in the major economic centers of the world, serving customers in more than 65 countries around the globe through regional units.
Complainant has registered the word mark DEUTSCHE TELEKOM both internationally (Madrid System registration no 661455) and in the US (registration no 75116020), in Germany (registration no 39607816) and in the European community (registration no 214643).
Complainant has also registered the domain names , , , , , ,
The Respondent has registered the domain name .
5. Parties� Contentions
5.1 Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant�s trademark, because the wording is identical safe the missing "s" after the first "t".
The Respondent does not show any legitimate interest in respect of the Domain Name.
The respondent does not offer and has never offered any goods or services nor even information on the Domain Name.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
There has been no use of the Domain Name by the Respondent. The silence and the Respondents inactivity indicate bad faith.
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM is a well-known mark, and this is also an indication for bad faith as the Respondent must have been aware of the mark when registering the Domain Name.
The Respondent has registered various domains typed confusingly similar to well known trademarks and names, and this is evidence of bad faith.
The Complainant requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the 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 that 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 in which the complainant has rights
The Panel finds that the documentation provided in annex C to the complaint, proves that Complainant has rights to the trademark DEUTSCHE TELEKOM.
The domain name at issue is . The Domain Name is not identical to the Complainants trademarks.
The Panel considers that, as found in several earlier Panel decisions, the suffix .org does not influence on the consideration of similarity.
As put forward by the Complainant, the Domain Name is identical to the trademarks save the missing "s". The words "deutsche" and "deutche" must be said to be very similar, and the rest of the Domain Name is identical to the last part of Complainant�s trademark.
On the basis of these considerations, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademarks.
6.2 Rights or legitimate interest in the domain name
The Panel has considered the allegation by the Complainant as to the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent is not a representative or licensee of the Complainant, nor has Respondent any other authorization to use the Complainant�s trademarks.
As a result of default, the Respondent has not contested these allegations.
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 Domain Name. The address does not lead to any active website, and so the Panel did not find any such evidence.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.
6.3 Registration and use in bad faith
The Panel has considered complainant�s allegations and evidences with regard to the Respondent�s registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate that it did not register and use the Domain Name in bad faith.
Complainant has put forward evidence that his trademarks are well known, and the Panel finds that the trademarks of the Complainant in all probability have been known to Respondent when registering the Domain Name.
At the moment there is no web site corresponding to the Domain Name, thus the Respondent does not conduct any legitimate commercial or non-commercial business activity.
Given the Complainants numerous trademark registrations and its wide reputation with connection with the mark Deutsche Telekom, it is hard to conceive that the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name.
The Panel agrees with the Complainant that the differences in the German and English languages may cause users to mistype the Complainant�s name when searching for its websites. Respondent�s registration of the Domain Name thus appears to be an intentional attempt to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in a corresponding domain name. Supported by the documentation proving that Respondent has registered several domain names confusingly similar to other marks, this is a circumstance that according to Paragraph 4 b (ii) of the Policy is evidence of bad faith.
Based on the above discussion, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
7. Decision
The Panel has found that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark held by the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. The Panel further finds 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 that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Peter G. Nitter
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 21, 2002
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy