WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Mr. Adam Michel Lisowski v. Igor Udalov
Case No. DTV2004-0008
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Mr. Adam Michel Lisowski, Paris of France, represented by Ron C. Jakubowicz, Germany.
The Respondent is Igor Udalov, Moscow of Russian Federation.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with .tv Corporation International.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the�“Center”) on September 20, 2004. On September 20, 2004, the Center transmitted by email to .tv Corporation International a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On September 24, 2004, .tv Corporation International 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 Complainant filed an Amended Complaint on October 8, 2004. The Center verified that the Amended 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 October 14, 2004. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November�3, 2004. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 5, 2004.
The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on November�10, 2004. 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 complains about the registration of the domain name by Respondent. The Complainant is operating a TV program which is known as “Fashion TV” and “Ftv”. The Complaint is mainly based on a Community trademark registration of the trademark FTV registered under Number 646091 for several classes of products and services on August 5, 2003.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The domain name of the Respondent is identical to the registered trademark “FTV” and the domain name of the Complainant.
The Complainant is operating a TV program which is known world-wide as “Fashion TV” and “Ftv”. The Complainant has registered a number of trademarks to protect his unique services including Community trademark registration Number 646091. In addition the Complainant registered in 1995, the domain for his TV channel and has used it constantly.
The Respondent does not have any legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no evidence of the Respondent’s demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
According to a trademark research of the Complainant the designation “FTV” is not registered as trademark in Russia.
The Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
The Respondent is planning to operate a TV program similar to the Complainant’s channel. The Respondent announced his intention under “/ftv/index.htm” publicly. By using the domain name the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent is a former shareholder of the company which represents the Complainant’s Fashion TV Group in Russia and at one point distributed the Fashion TV Group’s TV channels and products in Russia. He left the company about 9 months ago and is now trying to establish his own TV channel in Russia in direct competition to the Complainant’s Fashion TV. For this reason he used parts of the registered trademarks of the Complainant and/or the Complainant’s Fashion TV Group for his letterhead, business cards and company signs.
Because of his activity for Fashion TV the Respondent must have known about the respective trademarks and domain names of the Complainant.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name is identical to the trademark of the Complainant registered as a Community Trademark. This registration covers the products and services for which apparently the Respondent is planning to use the Domain Name. There is therefore no doubt that confusion could arise out of the use and registration of the Domain Name
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence of any prior use or any other legitimate interest that could result in a dismissal of the Complaint. Respondent did not respond to the Complaint and did not provide any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have had in the domain name .
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
From the non-contested statement of the Complainant it follows that the Respondent is one of the shareholders of the former distributor of the Complainant in Russia. He therefore must have been fully aware of the position of the Complainant with respect of use of the trademark and the domain name. It also became clear that the Respondent is planning to start almost identical activities as those of the Complainant. The Panel therefore reaches the conclusion that the Domain Name is registered and is used in bad faith mainly because in doing so the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users for commercial gain to his website with the result that confusion may arise with the business of the Complainant known under the trademark and domain name FTV.
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 the Complainant.
Charles Gielen
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 23, 2004
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy