WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Mitel Networks Corporation v. Rathi Shanmugalingam
Case No. D2003-0630
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Mitel Networks Corporation, Kanata, Ontario, Canada, represented by Christian S. Na., of Herndon, Virginia, United States of America.
The Respondent is Rathi Shanmugalingam, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The domain name is and the Registrar is Tucows, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
3. Procedural History
A Complaint was submitted to the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") on August 14, 2003. On August 15, 2003, the Registrar verified the registration. The Center determined that the Complaint satisfied the formal filing requirements.
On August 21, 2003, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding ("the Commencement Notification") was electronically transmitted to the parties indicating that a Response was due by September 10, 2003. Respondent was properly notified by email to the address of the owner who was also the administrative, billing and technical contact. Notice was also emailed to postmaster@ the disputed domain name. In addition, hard copies were shipped by courier to the Respondent at the address indicated in the registration, which were received by the Respondent. No Response having been received, on September 17, 2003, the Center transmitted a Notification of Respondent Default by email.
On October 1, 2003, the Center sent a Notification of Panel Appointment appointing Mauricio Jalife Daher, who had previously submitted a Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence. No further submissions were received.
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:
Mitel Networks Corporation ("MITEL") is the owner of the Mitel and Mitel-formative trademarks in Canada, the United States and in another seventy-nine countries, of which the first registration listed is for the mark MITEL, registered in Canada under registration number 216,482, as early as October 1, 1976.
The disputed domain name was registered with Tucows, Inc. on March 29, 2000, and parked on the Look Communications Inc.�s / E�s domain servers. Currently, the website indicates it is under construction, but there is no indication that it has ever shown anything. The Respondent has failed to respond to the current Complaint.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
MITEL alleges that the domain name is confusingly similar to its registered "MITEL" marks, citing US case law holding that confusion exists where there is identity with the distinctive aspects or dominant portions of the mark. The fame of the MITEL mark is also cited as increasing the possibility of confusion.
MITEL asserts that Respondent has no rights in the MITEL name or mark under any of the criteria for rights and legitimate interests that are described in the UDRP Policy.
MITEL also asserts that Respondent is acting in bad faith because (a) the domain name was registered for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name, (b) the domain name was registered for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor, and (c) that by using the domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant�s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent�s website or location or of a product or service on the Respondent�s website or location.
B. Respondent
The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is thus in default and has neither made any submissions whatsoever after the Notification of Respondent Default.
6. Discussion and Findings
Section 4(a) of the UDRP Policy requires the Complainant to prove that each of three elements is present:
(i) that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the domain holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
6.1 Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark
The Panelist finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark "MITEL," in light of the arguments and evidence given by the Complainant, and under the criteria that the words "MITEL" and "NETWORKS" are part of the trade name of the Complainant. It is also relevant to consider that the word "NETWORKS" is descriptive of the services provided, and should therefore not be considered as a distinctive element of the domain name .
6.2 Rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
The Complainant has persuasively asserted that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Respondent has failed to file any evidence rebutting those assertions. Therefore, the Panel decides that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name .
6.3 Registration in bad faith
Complainant�s allegations with regard to the Respondent�s registration of the domain name in bad faith have been considered by the Panel. These allegations have not been contested by the Respondent because of his default.
Complainant�s trademarks are famous, and have evidently been known to Respondent when registering the contested domain name. Said domain name is highly unlikely to have been registered if it were not for Complainant�s trademarks.
Respondent�s registration of the domain name at issue appears to be an attempt to exploit the fame and goodwill of Complainant�s trademarks by attracting the public to his website for commercial gain.
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 confusingly similar to the trademark of 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 and used in bad faith.
Therefore, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel requests that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant, Mitel Networks Corporation.
Mauricio Jalife
Sole Panelist
Dated: October 14, 2003
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy