WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deutsche Telekom AG v. Domain Investments LLC
Case No. D2007-1916
1. The Parties
Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, of Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells, Germany.
Respondent is Domain Investments LLC, of Florida, United States of America.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , are registered with Moniker Online Services, LLC.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 21, 2007. On December 27, 2007, the Center transmitted by email to Moniker Online Services, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On January 8, 2008, Moniker Online Services, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 10, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 30, 2008. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 31, 2008.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira as the sole panelist in this matter on February 7, 2008. 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
Complainant is Europe’s largest telecommunications company. Over the past two years Complainant has completed or initiated transactions amounting to 66 billion dollars.
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 with a focus on the most dynamic markets in Europe and the United States of America.
Complainant’s subsidiary T-Mobile International AG & Co. KG is one of the world’s leading companies in mobile communications, concentrated on the most dynamic markets in Europe and the United States of America.
Complainant has registered a large number of national, community and international trademarks reflecting the terms T-MOBILE, T-MOBIL. Annexes D through G of the Complaint list several of these registrations.
Complainant has also registered and uses several Internet domain names, such as , , , , and . Annex H of the Complaint shows a comprehensive printout of the respective entries from the WhoIS database at “”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that Respondent is not, and never has been, a representative or licensee of Complainant, nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s marks.
Complainant claims that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademarks T-MOBILE and T-MOBIL, which are in fact incorporated them. Complainant states that these domain names consist of its famous marks on one side and a typo of the common generic word “pictures” on the other.
Complainant claims having never licensed or authorized Respondent to use its marks or to apply them to any kind of domain name. Complainant also states that Respondent is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain names. On the contrary, it alleges that the domain names are being used to offer information, among others, to mobile telecommunication. Annex I of the Complaint brings printouts evidencing this allegation.
In addition to the above, Complainant reports that a previous complaint had been filed against the Respondent (Deutsche Telekom AG. Domain Investments LLC/ Marlon Phillips, WIPO Case No. D2007-0919). Such complaint concerned the domain names , and . The appointed panel decided that those domain names were to be transferred to Complainant.
Complainant states that the six domain names in dispute here underline the indication that Respondent acts in bad faith, to attract Internet users to their links.
B. Respondent
Although timely notified of the Complaint, Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, in its paragraph 4 (a), determines that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
i. The subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
ii. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the domain name; and
iii. Respondent’s domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel understands that Complainant presented competent proof to have rights on the marks T-MOBILE and T-MOBIL, which are registered in several countries where Complainant does business and are consequently used regularly in those countries.
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names indeed are confusingly similar to the trademarks belonging to Complainant, since these marks are entirely reproduced in the domain names registered by Respondent, added by typos of the term “pictures”.
Hence, the Panel concludes that the first of the elements is present in this dispute.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel understands that the marks T-MOBILE and T-MOBIL are indeed undoubted linked to the Complainant, since they are registered worldwide, as proved by the evidence presented. Besides, the expression “T-Mobile” is also the main part of the trade name of one of the Complainant’s subsidiaries, T-Mobile International AG & Co. KG.
Further, Complainant provided enough evidence of the renown of its marks throughout the world. Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent could not be unaware of these marks and their direct relation to Complainant.
Thus, the Panel concludes that Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names and Respondent has not rebutted Complainant’s contentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the second element in the dispute is fulfilled.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is clear to the Panel that Respondent has registered the disputed domain names with the purpose of taking advantage of the renown of Complainant’s marks.
Once summoned by the letter sent by Complainant, Respondent did not answer.
Furthermore, Respondent is using the domain names to display advertising links, including links in the mobile telecommunication field, as clearly stated by the printouts presented as Annex I of the Complaint.
It is reasonable to conclude that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks with the adoption of a misspelling or typing error-formed domain names.
The fact that the six domain names object of this Complaint are in fact an addition to the list of domain names created by the Respondent following the same pattern, part of which has already been decided in Deutsche Telekom AG. Domain Investments LLC/ Marlon Phillips, WIPO Case No. D2007-0919 is an additional evidence of the bad faith in registering the domain names.
The Panel understands that all evidence shows that Respondent registered and has been using the domain names in question in bad faith.
The Panel, hence, finds present the third element.
7. Decision
Therefore, pursuant to paragraph 4 (i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names, , , , , , be transferred to Complainant.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 25, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy