WIPO Arbitrationand Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVEPANEL DECISION
Deutsche Telekom AG v. LaPorte Holdings
Case No.�D2005-0373
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells, Germany.
The Respondent is LaPorte Holdings, Los Angeles, California, United�States�of�America.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names.
are registered with NameK Inc.
The disputed domain name is registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on April 12, 2005 and a on April�21,�2005, an additional domain name was added to the Complaint. On April�12,�2005, the Center transmitted by email to NameK Inc. and on April�22,�2005, to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On April�12,�2005, NameK Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. On April�22,�2005 Moniker Online Services, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. 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 April�26,�2005. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5(a), the due date for Response was May�16,�2005. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May�17,�2005.
The Center appointed Anders�Janson as the Sole Panelist in this matter on May�23,�2005. 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 asserted, and provided evidence in support of the following facts, which the Panel finds established:
The Complainant, Deutche Telecom AG, is Europe’s largest telecommunications company, and is established in several countries around the world. Presently, the Complainant is serving customers in more than 65 countries, including Europe and the USA.
The Complainant has more than 2 million shareholders, which is more than any other company in the country and more shareholders outside its home country than any other country in the world.
The Complainant’s daughter T-Mobile International is one of the largest GSM mobile providers in the world, focusing its business mainly on Europe and the USA. The company offers all digital voice, messaging and high-speed wireless data services to more than 16,3 million customers in USA alone, through its affiliate T-Mobile USA.
The Complainant and its subsidiary T-Online International AG carry on the business of providing Internet and related services. In this sector, the Complainant has nearly 14�million customers. T-Online offers a broad range of multimedia-services, including free and paid content, web-hosting, email-services, on-line banking and international roaming access.
The Complainant’s mobile communications provider was previously known as “T-Mobil”. The corporate name is now “T-Mobile”.
The Complainant has registered a large number of national, Community and international trademarks reflecting the terms “T-Mobile” and “T-Mobil”. The Complainant’s trademark portfolio includes the following registered trademarks.
- Trademark “T-MOBILE”, No.�2282432, registered in the USA on October�5,�1999, filed on February�27,�1997, in the classes 9 and, 14, 16,18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42.
- Trademark “T-MOBILE” No, 2284387, registered in the USA, on October�12, 1999, filed on February�27,�1997, in the classes, 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, and 42
- Community trademark “T-MOBILE”, No EU000485441, registered on February�6,�2004, in the classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 41 and 42
- International trademark “T-MOBILE”, No 00680034, registered on February�26, 1997, in the classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- International trademark “T-MOBILE”, No 00680035, registered on February�26, 1997, in the classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- International trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No. 00650171, registered on January�11,�1996, in the classes 9, 16, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- International trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No 00763492, registered on March�14,�2001, in the classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 39 and 40
- International trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No. 00653891, registered on January�11,�1996, in the classes 9, 16, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- Community trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No 00214528, registered on April�11,�2001, in the classes 9, 16, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- Community trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No 00214478, registered on November�10,�1998, in the classes 9, 16, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- International trademark “T-MOBIL”, registration No 00660483, registered on June�8,�1996, in the classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42
- Trademark “T-ONLINE”, registration No 2432440, registered on March�6,�2001, in the USA, in the classes 9, 14, 16, 18, 25, 28, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42.
The Complainant and its daughter T-Mobile USA have registered and used inter alia the following domain names: , , , , , , , and .
The Panel finds it established that the Complainant’s trademarks are well known, and used in commerce around the world.
The Respondent is a company with a stated address in Los Angeles, USA, who does not have any affiliation with the Complainant, nor is or has been a representative or licensee of the Complainant, or is otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s marks.
The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent with NameK Inc. at different points in time during 2003 or 2004, and with Moniker�Online Services�LLC in September�2004. The disputed domain names do not link to a web page in use.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
- The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
- The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names;
- The domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith; and
- The domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and should be transferred to the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph�4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and
(iii) that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain names at issue are , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and . Complainant is the holder of a large number of registered trademarks consisting of or containing the word T-Mobile, T-Mobil and T-Online. The trademark is very well known.
The Complainant has asserted that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark “T-MOBILE”, “T-MOBIL” and “T-ONLINE”. The use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens does not influence the consideration of similarity.
Further, the domain names and are misspellings of the Complainant’s trademarks. The letter “o” is located next to the letter “l” on the computer keyboard, and “c” is the first letter of the first level domain name “com”. The Complainant has therefore concluded the Respondent is engaged in typosquatting.
Numerous panels have previously found that disputed domain names have been similar to the complainant’s trademarks due to misspellings, because of typosquatting.
Furthermore, the Complainant has asserted that the domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and consist of the Complainant’s famous trademark and a suffix containing a common or generic term. Adding a common or generic term to a well-known trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s trademark.
Finally, the Complainant has asserted that disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and all are misspellings of, or variations of, equivalent domain name used by the Complainant itself.
The Panel finds it established that the trademark “T-MOBILE”, “T-MOBIL” and “T-ONLINE” are very well known and that the ownership of the trademark belongs to the Complainant.
The Panel further finds it established that the disputed domain names and are purposeful misspellings of the trademark in a way that constitutes typosquatting. Furthermore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and are variations of the trademarks, which are also used by the Complainant in domain names. The disputed domain names are variations of existing domain names registered to the Complainant, using misspellings and different methods of punctuation.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided statements to support the supposition that the disputed domain names and the trademark of the Complainant are confusingly similar.
The Respondent does not contest this supposition.
The domain names must therefore be considered confusingly similar to the trademark “T-MOBILE”, “T-MOBIL” and “T-ONLINE”. The Panel holds that the Complainant has established element (i) of the Policy’s Paragraph�4(a).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent does not show any legitimate interest in the registration of the disputed domain names. The domain names do not appear to be in use for any bona fide offering of goods or services or to be prepared for such use, and there is no indication that the Respondent was known by the names “tmobile”, “tmobil” or “tonline” prior to the registration of the domain names. The Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s mark. There is no indication for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.
The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent is known for having registered numerous domain names without legitimate interest. Previous panels have found that the Respondent, Horoshiyo�Inc. and Mr.�Henry�Chan all are the same individual (Krome Studios Pty, Ltd. v. LaPorte Holdings, WIPO Case No D2004-0707).
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , and had been registered for Mr.�Henry�Chan before they were transferred to the Respondent.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , and were registered for Horoshiyo Inc. before they were transferred to the Respondent.
Previous panels have established that the Respondent on numerous occasions has registered domain names which were identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s marks, without having rights or legitimate interest.
The Respondent does not appear to have any rights or legitimate interests, and the disputed domain name does not appear to be in use for any bona fide offering of goods or services or to be prepared for such use. The Complainant’s supported assertion that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests shifts the burden of proof to the Respondent. Further, in cases where the Respondent has failed to file a Response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph�5, the Panel may draw negative inferences from such a default. The Panel finds it established that the Respondent has demonstrated a bad faith conduct.
The Panel therefore holds that the Complainant has established element (ii) of the Policy’s Paragraph�4(a).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally the Panel has to consider the question of the disputed domain name having been registered and used in “bad faith”.
Paragraph�4(b) states four (non-exclusive) circumstances which, if found to be present, are deemed to provide evidence of bad faith in registering and using the domain name.
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and business names. The Complainant also emphasizes that the disputed domain names expressly refer to some of T-Mobile’s well-known services, or are even identical to the business name “T-Mobile USA”.
The Panel finds that the Respondent cannot plausibly claim never to have heard of the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant has numerous trademark registrations, both national and international, all registered prior to the disputed domain names. The mere quantity of the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent can not possibly suggest anything else than that the Respondent had previous knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks, and that the registrations were made in bad faith.
The Panel therefore concludes that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent was acting in bad faith pursuant to paragraph�4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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 names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Anders Janson
Sole Panelist
Dated: June�16,�2005
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy