WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Nokia Corporation v. Jamie Jamie Beadle
Case No. D2008-0218
1. The Parties
Complainant is Nokia Corporation, of Helsinki, Finland, represented by Rouse Legal of United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Respondent is Jamie Jamie Beadle, of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba J.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 12, 2008. On February 14, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba J a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On February 15, 2008, CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba J 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 February 21, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 12, 2008. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on March 13, 2008.
The Center appointed Peter G. Nitter as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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 a supplier of wireless telecommunications and mobile telephones, and also operates email management services.
Complainant has used the trademark NOKIA since at least as early as 1968 and has registered the trademark NOKIA in several jurisdictions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which is the registered domicile of Respondent.
Complainant has also registered various domain names including , , , , , and .
The disputed domain name was registered on August 12, 2002.
Complainant became aware of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on or around December 21, 2007. Through its solicitor Complainant sent a cease and desist letter on December 28, 2007, by post- and e-mail to the addresses stated as Respondents addresses on Network Solutions Whois database. A further letter was sent to Complainant on January 30, 2008 to the same addresses. Both emails were bounced with an accompanying failure notice stating that “the e-mail account does not exist at the organization this message was sent to.”.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
According to Complainant, the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s NOKIA trademark in its entirety and the mere addition of the term “email” does not add any distinctive feature to the domain name. On the contrary, the selection of the term “email” is an attempt to trade off the goodwill and reputation associated with Complainant’s products and services.
Complainant explains that Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and has not been granted any license or consent to use Complainant’s trademark in a domain name or in any other manner.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant also holds that Respondent, due to his knowledge of the NOKIA trademark and Complainant’s rights, has registered the contested domain name in bad faith.
According to Complainant the website to which the disputed domain name refers contains advertisements for, and redirects Internet users to a company whose services include e-mail management services. Such services are also provided by Complainant.
On this basis Complainant holds that Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of , but intends to misleadingly divert potential customers of Complainant from Complainant’s website for Respondent’s own commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark.
Further according to Complainant, Respondent has also provided false contact information further supporting a finding of bad faith.
For this reason, Complainant maintains that the disputed domain is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The domain name at issue is not identical to Complainant’s trademark, and the question is therefore whether there is a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s NOKIA trademark, with the addition of the word “email” and the generic top level domain denominator “.com”.
Previous panel decisions under the UDRP have concluded that the generic top level domain denominator is irrelevant when determining whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a protected trademark. Thus, the first issue only concerns the part of the disputed domain name which consist of “nokiaemail”.
Further, the mere addition of a common or generic word such as “email” to a registered trademark has consistently been deemed insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the domain name and the complainant’s trademark. This follows from: PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696; PepsiCo, Inc. v. Diabetes Home Care, Inc. and DHC Services,WIPO Case No. D2001-0174; and Parfums Christian Dior v. 1 Netpower, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0022.
In the present case, the only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is thus identical to the Complainant’s trademark NOKIA.
Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark pursuant to paragraph 4 a (i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has, according to Complainant, not been granted any license or right to use Complainant’s trademark in any manner by Complainant, and is not commonly known by Complainant’s mark.
Respondent has not filed any response arguing that it has rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name. None of Complainant’s assertions have thus been contested by Respondent.
In the event that any such rights, connections or affiliations existed, it would generally be relatively easy for a respondent to substantiate this, while it is generally difficult for a complainant to prove the negative that respondent has no such rights. For this reason, previous decisions under the UDRP have, in the event of a respondent’s default, found it sufficient for complainant to make a prima facie showing of its assertion pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the circumstances mentioned above, and evidenced by Complainant are sufficient to establish a prima facie showing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue.
As Respondent has not rebutted this by demonstrating any of the circumstances that constitute rights to, or legitimate interests in, the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name at issue.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel has considered Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant’s trademark NOKIA is registered in several jurisdictions worldwide, including in the United Kingdom which is the registered domicile of Respondent.
Considering the distinctiveness, and the widespread use and fame of Complainant’s trademark, including in the country where Respondent is domiciled, the Panel finds it inconceivable that Respondent, at the time of registration, was not familiar with the Complainant’s trademark NOKIA.
Based on the evidence provided, the Panel finds that the website connected to the disputed domain name advertises and redirects Internet users to a company whose services include e-mail management services.
On this background the Panel finds that Respondent has used the confusing similarity between the NOKIA trademark and the disputed domain name for the purpose of intentionally attempting to attract users to its website for financial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark.
Further based on the evidence presented to it, the Panel finds that Respondent has provided false contact details, in the form of a false e-mail address, in breach of the registration agreement. Providing false contact information is in itself seen as an indication of bad faith, according to previous panel decisions.
By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate that it has not registered and used the domain name at issue in bad faith.
Hence, the Panel finds that the contested domain name was registered and is being 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 Complainant.
Peter G. Nitter
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 9, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy