The Complainant is Telecom Italia S.p.A., Italy, represented by Studio Torta S.p.A., Italy.
The Respondent is Emiliano Monti, Italy, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2020. On July 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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” or “UDRP”), 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 6, 2020. The Center received two email communications from the Respondent on July 20 and 30, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. The Center notified the Parties on August 7, 2020, that it would proceed to panel appointment. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 2020. 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. The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a formal response from the Respondent. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is Telecom Italia S.p.A., an Italian company operating in the telecommunication field and owning several trademark registrations for TELECOM ITALIA, including the following ones: - Italian Trademark Registration No. 0001583851 for TELECOM ITALIA, registered on March 12, 2014; and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 3043494 for TELECOM ITALIA, registered on May 4, 2004. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. The disputed domain name On May 29, 2020, the Complainant’s legal representatives sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent and on the same day the Respondent replied with the same email communication sent on July 20, 2020 as part of the informal response to the present Complaint. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark TELECOM ITALIA, as the disputed domain name wholly contains the Complainant’s trademark with the addition of the word “wireless” (a dictionary term referring to a popular service provided by the Complainant). Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark TELECOM ITALIA is distinctive and well known. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name, with the purpose of intentionally misleading consumers, constitutes a tarnishment of the Complainant’s trademark and qualifies as bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that even if the website at the disputed domain name were to be considered as an inactive “work in progress” webpage, the non-use of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no formal response to the Complainant’s contentions. However, the Respondent submitted two informal email communications on July 20 and 30, 2020. In his email communications, the Respondent stated the following: “V IT in seguito le alleghiamo quello che è stato già risposto e documentato le accuse formulate dallo studio torta indicando l’infondatezza Inoltre vogliamo precisare che tutti i documenti che ci sono stati notificati dal vostro organismo sono in lingua inglese Ma purtroppo noi siamo una società italiana e non siamo tenuti a tradurli Si prega pertanto qualora vogliano che prendiamo in esame quanto scritto di produrre gli stessi con traduzione giurata ai fini legali differentemente purtroppo per incomprensione non potrà essere presa in considerazione nessuna azione avendo provato Inoltre a tradurli tramite sistemi informatici purtroppo risultano incomprensibili differentemente da quello che noi scriviamo che viene tradotta automaticamente tramite un sistema di traduzione web con dispiacere ci troviamo costretti a denigrare la vostra richiesta fino a che non venga prodotta nella lingua italiana la mia Poi enorme perplessità E chi Il convenuto italiano Il ricorrente italiano è la società di intermediazione Svizzera e perché non avete scritto in tedesco sarebbe stato molto più semplice Attendiamo un vostro documento tradotto e giurato al fine di procedere per le sedi competenti o accettare ciò che incomprensibilmente è scritto V EN then we attach what has already been answered and documented the accusations made by the pie study indicating the groundlessness We also want to specify that all the documents that have been notified to us by your body are in English. But unfortunately we are an Italian company and we are not required to translate them. Please therefore if they want us to examine what is written to produce the same with a sworn translation. for legal purposes, unfortunately, due to misunderstanding, no action can be taken into consideration having tried. Furthermore, translating them through computer systems unfortunately they are incomprehensible differently from what we write which is automatically translated through a web translation system with regret, we find ourselves forced to denigrate the your request until my huge concern is produced in the Italian language And who The Italian defendant The Italian applicant is the brokerage company Switzerland and because you did not write in German it would have been much simpler. We await your translated and sworn document in order to proceed to the competent offices or accept what is incomprehensibly written Preg.ma Dott Marcella Barolo Faccio seguito alla Vostra missiva avente ad oggetto Contraffazione del marchio italiano numero 1583851 e del marchio dell’Unione Europea numero 3043494 (Ns. rif. MAR 27651/BM/bp), anticipatami oggi via mail ed alla sua successiva telefonata, per ribadire quanto già anticipato per le vie brevi. In primo luogo, contesto la sua affermazione secondo cui il sottoscritto o la Privacyfoundation avrebbero Contraffatto il Marchio ‘Telecom Italia’. Non vi e ‘stata da parte mia, o da parte della Privacy Foundation, alcuna riproduzione abusiva di un marchio o di altri segni distintivi tale da poter confondere i consumatori circa la provenienza del prodotto. Mi preme, per maggior chiarezza, evidenziare quanto segue: Il «domain name», ossia «nome a dominio» (o più semplicemente «dominio») indica il nome – e, di conseguenza anche l’indirizzo – di un sito internet. La scelta spetta al titolare: chi apre un blog, un portale, una piattaforma di servizi o qualsiasi altro sito, ne sceglie il nome così come si fa alla nascita di un figlio. Il dominio quindi identifica uno spazio web e lo distingue da tutti gli altri. Ma è possibile usare come nome di sito, quello di un prodotto già esistente e, magari, noto? Che succede se il nome del sito è uguale a un marchio registrato? La risposta è stata fornita da una recente sentenza della Cassazione[1] , segno di come anche il diritto si stia evolvendo ai nuovi strumenti di comunicazione e informazione. La legge sui marchi[2] tutela i nomi delle aziende e dei prodotti dalle contraffazioni solo se: * tra l’originale e la “copia” vi è una sostanziale identità tale da ingenerare confusione nel mercato; non basterebbe il cambio di una semplice vocale o consonante quando tra i nomi vi è ugualmente assonanza. Ad esempio, sarebbe illegittimo l’uso del nome Calvin Clen, piuttosto che Calvin Klein * se i due si rivolgono allo stesso mercato. Quindi prodotti completamente diversi con lo stesso nome possono convivere perché non vi è alcun rischio che il consumatore possa pensare che si tratti della stessa azienda. Nessuno potrebbe infatti pensare che lo spumante Ferrari provenga dalla omonima casa automobilistica. Allo stesso modo è legittimo registrare un sito – e quindi un domain name – con il nome di un marchio già noto se l’attività svolta dal proprietario dello spazio web è completamente diversa da quella del titolare del marchio. Considerato poi che, per ragioni tecniche, due siti non possono mai avere lo stesso indirizzo (cosiddetto url), ‘chi prima arriva meglio alloggia’ e il secondo dovrà trovare una variante al proprio nome. Così, per tornare all’esempio precedente, è legittimo il sito internet ferrari.com per indicare la casa automobilistica, mentre le cantine di Ferrari si sono dovute accontentare di ferraritrento.it. Nella sentenza in commento la Cassazione ribadisce proprio questi principi: il titolare del marchio registrato prima non può vietare l’uso del dominio, se non c’è rischio di confondere i prodotti o i servizi. L’uso del nome a dominio va considerato illecito quando c’è solo la possibilità che il pubblico associ il titolare del sito al titolare del marchio già registrato, rendendo di fatto impossibile per quest’ultimo utilizzare il brand originario su Internet. Il titolare del brand originario non può far valere alcun automatismo nel vietare il diritto all’uso del nome a dominio. A tacitazione di ogni vostra pretesa la circostanza che i domini de quibus non sono mai stati utilizzati. Tale mancato utilizzo rende la loro registrazione inidonea a confondere i consumatori circa la provenienza del prodotto. Quale prodotto? Rimango comunque disponibile ad un dialogo qualora lo riteniate opportuno. Cordialmente Roma 29/05/2020” (email of July 20, 2020). “Facendo seguito alla vostra richiesta di mediazione per il sito Telecom italiawireless.com vi comunichiamo che allo stato attuale e stato preso in esame un dominio che risulterebbe non riconducibile alla scrivente pertanto la citazione che vuoi proponete per questa disputa è insufficiente per la mancata attribuzione delle responsabilità .in allegato trasmettiamo quanto risulterebbe al Nick e a chi è riconducibile tale dominio .differentemente se la proponente abbia informazioni differenti le quali possano essere ricondotte ad emiliano Monti o alle società collegate ce ne dia prova al fine di poter gestire questa disputa .parlando semplicemente del dominio.com la proponente non può presupporre dopo aver identificato altre estensioni che sia intestatario emiliano Monti perché se tale dovesse essere essendo undominio.it dovrebbe procedere con una mediazione italiana invece ha preferito effettuare un arbitrato presso la vostra organizzazione ma senza avere la certezza della proprietà del dominio .qualora la proponente e e specificatamente Marcella Barolo dello studio torta SPA debba provare inesorabilmente che la proprietà sia di Monti emiliano o delle società collegate rimanendo a vostra completa disposizione finché non verrà dimostrato che sia riconducibile alla scrivente non è possibile attivare una mediazione .rimanendo a vostra completa disposizione per qualsiasi dialogo o chiarimento siamo in attesa di un documento ufficiale che attesti la proprietà del dominio Telecomitaliawireless.com . Following your request for mediation for the Telecom Italiawireless.com site, we inform you that a domain that would not be attributable to the writer has currently been examined, therefore the quote you want to propose for this dispute is insufficient for the failure to attribute responsibilities .in attachment we transmit what would result to Nick and to whom this domain is attributable .differently if the proposer has different information which can be traced back to emiliano Monti or to the associated companies he can prove it in order to be able to manage this dispute simply by talking about the domain. .com the proposer cannot assume after having identified other extensions that he is the owner of Emilia Monti because if this were to be undominio.it he would have to proceed with an Italian mediation instead he preferred to carry out an arbitration at your organization but without having the certainty of ownership of the d ominio .if the proposer and and specifically Marcella Barolo of the PIE SPA studio must prove inexorably that the property is owned by Monti emiliano or associated companies, remaining at your complete disposal until it is shown that it is attributable to the writer, it is not possible to activate a mediation. We are at your complete disposal for any dialogue or clarification. We are awaiting an official document certifying the ownership of the Telecomitaliawireless.com domain.” (email of July 30, 2020) 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceedings According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the Panel decides that the language of the proceeding will be English. The Respondent in his first informal response of July 20, 2020 stated that the proceeding should be in Italian instead of English because the Respondent is Italian. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise (see section 4.5.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). In the present case the language of the Registration Agreement is English and the Panel considers that it would be unnecessary and unfair to request the Complainant to translate the Complaint, noting also that the Respondent, in his second informal response, appears to be able to understand English since he is signing as “Presidente Consiglio Amministrazione” (Chairman of the Board) of a company with an English name, i.e. Privacy Foundation S.p.A., that appears to belong to the Privacy Foundation Corporate Group having its headquarters in the United States of America. 6.2 Substantive Issues Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark TELECOM ITALIA both by registration and acquired reputation and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark TELECOM ITALIA. Regarding the addition of the word “wireless”, the Panel notes that it is now well established that the addition of descriptive terms or letters to a domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark (see, e.g., Aventis Pharma SA., Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH v. Jonathan Valicenti,WIPO Case No. D2005-0037; Red Bull GmbH v. Chai Larbthanasub,WIPO Case No. D2003-0709; America Online, Inc. v. Dolphin@Heart,WIPO Case No. D2000-0713). The addition of the word “wireless” does not therefore prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. It is also well accepted that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), in this case “.com”, may be ignored when assessing the similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see, e.g., VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com,WIPO Case No. D2000-0607). The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5. The Panel has however considered the Respondent’s submissions of July 20 and 30, 2020. The Complainant, in its Complaint and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The prima facie case presented by the Complainant shifts the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that he has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent, in his first informal response of July 20, 2020, encloses the same email sent as a reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter of May 29, 2020. In this communication the Respondent is basically stating that anybody could register as a domain name the trademark of a third party provided that it is used in a different field, that is without creating confusion about the respective products and/or services: since the disputed domain name is not used, the Respondent asserts that there is no possible confusion whatsoever. Then, in his second informal response of July 30, 2020, the Respondent is basically contradicting the statements of his first informal response, by stating that the Complainant was not able to prove that the disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Respondent or was somehow connected to the Respondent. From the analysis of both Respondent’s informal submissions the Panel is not able to find any demonstration of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The Panel finds on the case file that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”. Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark TELECOM ITALIA in the field of telecommunication is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant and deliberately registered the disputed domain name, especially because within the disputed domain name the word “wireless”, a dictionary term referring to a popular service provided by the Complainant, is added to the Complainant’s trademark TELECOM ITALIA. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is also used in bad faith since on the relevant website there is a link to the customer area webpage of a Complainant’s competitor, with the purpose of intentionally attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order to create confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy On the other hand, should the disputed domain name be considered as not used because it is pointing to an inactive website (aside from the above-referenced configuration message and link), as stated by the Respondent in his first informal response, the Panel considers that bad faith may exist even in cases of so-called “passive holding”, as found in the landmark UDRP decision Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that such passive holding amounts to bad faith use. The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name Edoardo Fano
Sole Panelist
Date: September 7, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy