WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Deutsche Telekom AG v. Domain Admin
Case No. D2008-0625
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG, Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells LLP, Germany.
The Respondent is Domain Admin, Glavni, Montenegro, Montenegro.
2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Blue Razor Domains.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 22, 2008. On April 23, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Blue Razor Domains a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain names at issue. On May 7, 2008, Blue Razor Domains 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 May 8, 2008. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 28, 2008. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 29, 2008.
The Center appointed Sandra J. Franklin as the sole panelist in this matter on June 5, 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, Europe’s largest telecommunications company, holds International Trademark Registration number IR 00755707 for the mark TELEKOM, as well as German registrations. Complainant provides telecommunications services to 65 countries around the world, including Montenegro, where Respondent resides. The “cg” in the and domain names in dispute is the abbreviation for Montenegro (Crna Gora). Complainant conducts its Internet business under the domain names and .
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s and domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEKOM mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the and domain names.
3. Respondent registered and used the and domain names in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.”
In view of Respondent’s failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(e), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009 (February 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the TELEKOM mark by its registration with various governmental authorities in accordance with Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the USPTO establishes Complainant’s rights in the mark.”); see also Vivendi Universal Games v. XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 11, 2003) (“Complainant’s federal trademark registrations establish Complainant’s rights in the BLIZZARD mark.”).
Respondent’s and domain names incorporate Complainant’s entire TELEKOM mark and merely add the “cg”, referring to a country Complainant operates in, along with the “.mobi”, referring to the telecommunications industry, which Complainant operates in. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s TELEKOM mark pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(a)(i). See Space Imaging LLC v. Brownell, AF-0298 (eResolution September 22, 2000) (finding confusing similarity where the respondent’s domain name combines the complainant’s mark with a generic term that has an obvious relationship to the complainant’s business); see also Sony Kabushiki Kaisha v. Inja, Kil,WIPO Case No. D2000-1409 (December 9, 2000) (finding that “[n]either the addition of an ordinary descriptive word . . . nor the suffix ‘.com’ detract from the overall impression of the dominant part of the name in each case, namely the trademark SONY” and thus Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) is satisfied); see also Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady,WIPO Case No. D2000-0429 (June 25, 2000) (finding that the top level of the domain name such as “.net” or “.com” does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar).
The Panel finds that Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
According to the WHOIS registration information and based on all other uncontested evidence in the record, Respondent is not commonly known by the and domain names. Complainant asserts that Respondent is not licensed or otherwise authorized to utilize Complainant’s TELEKOM mark in association with the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy paragraph 4(c)(ii).
Respondent does not use the disputed domain names; they are simply parked at Blue Razor Domains, where Internet users are directed to advertisements for the sale of domain names, presumably to Respondent’s benefit. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that Respondent’s willingness to sell the disputed domain names indicates that it lacks rights and legitimate interests under the Policy. See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Stork,WIPO Case No. D2000-0628 (August 11, 2000) (finding the respondent’s conduct purporting to sell the domain name suggests it has no legitimate use); see also Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. Hyun-Jun Shin, FA 154098 (Nat. Arb. Forum, May 27, 2003) (holding that under the circumstances, the respondent’s apparent willingness to dispose of its rights in the disputed domain name suggested that it lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum September 30, 2003) (“Respondent’s demonstrated intent to divert Internet users seeking Complainant’s website to a website of Respondent and for Respondent’s benefit is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii).”); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum October 17, 2003) (“Respondent’s use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant’s business does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy paragraph 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy paragraph 4(c)(iii)”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has met Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark, is evidence of bad faith. See Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc’y v. “Infa dot Net” Web Serv., FA 95685 (Nat. Arb. Forum November 6, 2000) (finding that “general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith”).
Complainant also provided evidence of Respondent’s falsification of its address and other indications of trying to conceal its identity, further evidence of bad faith. See Home Director, Inc. v. HomeDirecto,WIPO Case No. D2000-0111 (April 11, 2000), where the use of false contact information was further evidence of bad faith.; see also Grupo Televisa, S.A., de C.V,. et al v. Autosya S.A. de C.V., et al,WIPO Case No. DTV2001-0007 (June 11, 2001) (“Additionally, Respondents’ bad faith registration may also be ascertained by the fact that Respondents supplied incorrect contact information when registering the Domain Name.”)
The Panel finds that Policy parragraph 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
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 and domain names be transferred to the Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin
Sole Panelist
Dated: June 19, 2008
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy