WIPO Arbitrationand Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVEPANEL DECISION
Deutsche Telekom AG v. Unasi Management Inc.
Case No.�D2005-0423
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells, Germany.
The Respondent is Unasi Management Inc., Panama.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names:
are registered with iH Inc. d/b/a DotR
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on April�20,�2005. On April�21,�2005, the Center transmitted by email to iH Inc. d/b/a DotR a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On April�21,�2005, iH�Inc. d/b/a DotR 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 subsidiary T-Mobile International AG & Co.KG 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 the USA alone, through its affiliate T-Mobile USA.
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.
The Complainant and its daughter T-Mobile USA have registered and use 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 Panama, which 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 iH Inc. d/b/a DotR at different points in time between�2002 and�2005.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, , , , , and are linked to the website “www.”.
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , and are linked to a website named “www.”
Both websites contain sponsored links for various categories, inter alia phones.
When entering the other disputed domain names , , , and , they link to websites containing the same sponsored links.
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 . The Complainant is the holder of a number of registered trademarks, both national and international consisting of or containing the word T-Mobile. The Panel finds it established that the trademark is very well known and that the ownership of the trademark belongs to the Complainant.
Most of the disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s well know trademark “T-MOBILE” with an additional generic term, such as “plan(s)”, “cell phones”, “ring tone”, “free ring tone”, “stores”, “support”, “offers”, etc. The Complainant has asserted that Internet users may be confused as to the origin of the disputed domain names.
The Panel finds, as have numerous previous panels, that the adding of a generic term to well known trademark does not sufficiently distinguish the disputed domain names from the Complainant’s mark.
Further, the Complainant has asserted that many of the disputed domain names contain simple misspellings of the Complainant’s trademark, for instance , , and .
The Panel finds, as have numerous previous panels, that deliberate misspellings by adding, reversing or substituting letters in a well known mark, i.e. typosquatting, does not change the impression of similarity.
Furthermore, the Panel concludes that the use or absence of punctuation marks, such as hyphens does not influence the consideration of similarity.
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”. 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” 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 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 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 names 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 there has been no legitimate use of the disputed domain names by the Respondent. The Respondent had previous knowledge of the Complainants trademarks and business names.
The Complainant also asserts that the use of typosquatting is in itself evidence of bad faith (Six Continents Hotels, Inc. v. null John Zuccarini d/b/a Country Walk, WIPO�Case No.�D2003-0161).
Finally, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain names link to active websites which only display various sponsored links, allowing the Respondent to make commercial gains. According to the Policy paragraph�4(b)(iv), it shall be evidence for registration and use of the domain names in bad faith if by using the domain names, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
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. 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. Further, the Panel finds it established that the Respondent stands to gain commercially through the sponsored links featured on the websites to which all disputed domain names link, which in itself has been considered evidence of 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