WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Siemens Aktiengesellschaft v. Telmex Management Services, Inc.
Case No. D2003-0995
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Siemens Aktiengesellschaft, New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Abelman Frayne & Schwab, United States of America.
The Respondent is Telmex Management Services, Inc., Road Town, Tortola, British Virgin Islands, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with eNom.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 16, 2003.
On December 17, 2003, the Center transmitted by email to eNom a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. eNom failed to submit a verification response. Therefore, the Center made a Whois printout on December 23, 2003, which showed that the disputed domain name was registered with eNom, and that the Respondent, Telmex Management Services Inc., was the current registrant of the disputed domain name. The Panel would like to remind the Registrar of the importance of providing a verification response so that the Center can ascertain the contact information of the Respondent and provide appropriate notice and furthermore to ensure that the domain name registration remains locked during the UDRP proceedings.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 23, 2003. The Panel is satisfied that the Center has discharged its responsibility to give the Respondent notice of the complaint. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 12, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent�s default on January 28, 2004.
The Center appointed William A. Van Caenegem as the Sole Panelist in this matter on February 10, 2004. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Siemens AG, a multinational company operating in many countries. It provides goods and services in the field of electronics and electrical engineering, as well as a number of other areas. It provides these goods and services under the trademark SIEMENS which is registered in many jurisdictions. Siemens AG is a major employer in various countries, including the US and Germany.
The Respondent is Telmex Management Services, which has registered the domain name . The domain name has resolved to different websites unconnected to Siemens AG, including websites offering escort services and a website offering accommodation services.
5. Parties� Contentions
A. Complainant
I. Identical or confusingly similar domain name
The Complainant submits that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark SIEMENS which is registered in its name in a number of jurisdictions. The Complainant also provides evidence of the registration in its name of trademarks containing the word siemens. The Complainant further submits that the word siemens has no meaning in English, other than in relation to its goods and services; and that the name siemensjob suggests employment services with Siemens AG.
II. Absence of rights or legitimate interests in the domain name
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has received no permission or consent to use the mark. The Complainant further submits that the domain name is not used in connection with the offering of bona fide services. At various times websites at the domain name address have offered accommodation services or directed users to unconnected websites offering adult services. The Complainant also submits that the extensive reputation of the trademark Siemens led the Respondent to register the domain name , giving rise to a presumption of absence of a legitimate right or interest.
III. Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of behavior which consists of registering domain names containing well known trademarks.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to derive commercial gain by creating confusion as to the affiliation of the website associated with the domain name, resulting in traffic to websites unconnected to the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant�s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
This matter must be decided in accordance with Paragraph 4 (a) of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy adopted by ICANN, on August 26, 1999. Accordingly the Complainant must establish 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 the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In accordance with the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 5(e), as a result of the Respondent�s failure to file a response, this dispute must be decided upon the complaint; in other words, in accordance with Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, upon the statements and documents contained within the complaint. The Panel can also draw any inferences it considers appropriate from the Respondent�s failure to comply with a requirement under the Rules (Paragraph 14(b)).
As a consequence, the Panel accepts as true the allegations of fact contained in the complaint (Talk City Inc v. Michael Robertson D2000-0009, February 29, 2000; Chef America Inc v. Sean Murray D2000-1481, February 13, 2001).
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided documentary proof of its ownership of the registered trademark SIEMENS in numerous jurisdictions. The registered domain name at issue is not identical to the registered trademark SIEMENS.
However, the domain name is confusingly similar. The addition of the suffix �job�, being a generic word, is not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from the registered trademark (Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower Inc, WIPO Case No. D2000-0022; AXA China Region Ltd v. KANNETT Ltd, WIPO Case No. D2000-1377). Furthermore, the domain name is calculated to confuse or deceive, as it suggests that employment opportunities with Siemens are on offer.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark Siemens in any way. No response has been filed, and as a result there is no evidence before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests that the Respondent might hold in the domain name in question. No bona fide services having any connection with Siemens AG, or in relation to which the word siemens has any meaning, are offered at any website linked to or connected the domain name .
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy provides that registration of a domain name to prevent the owner from using its trademark in a domain name is evidence of bad faith, where it is part of a pattern of such conduct. The Complainant points to 18 Panel decisions under the Policy, concerning instances of the Respondent registering domain names incorporating well known marks in which it was found not to have any rights or legitimate interests. Taken together with the registration the subject of this complaint, this amounts to a pattern of conduct. It is obvious that the registration of the domain name has prevented the owner of the trademark SIEMENS from reflecting the mark in a domain name in a manner that it could be expected to want to do. Indeed it is a common practice for companies to provide information about employment opportunities via the Internet.
The Complainant also provides evidence that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its on-line locations by creating confusion with the Complainant�s trademark (see Policy Paragraph 4 (b) (iv)).
The domain name has thus been registered and used in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
William A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 20, 2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy