Nokia Corporation v. Mike Kolade
Claim Number: FA0808001219033
Complainant is Nokia Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Britton
Payne, of Foley & Lardner LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <nokiamanagement.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on August 5, 2008; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on August 6, 2008.
On August 05, 2008, Wild West Domains, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nokiamanagement.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On August
8, 2008, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative
Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of
August 28, 2008
by which Respondent could file a response to the Complaint, was transmitted to
Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on
Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts,
and to postmaster@nokiamanagement.com by
e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 5, 2008, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed James A. Carmody, Esq., as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent." Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <nokiamanagement.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOKIA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nokiamanagement.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nokiamanagement.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Nokia Corporation, is a manufacturer of telecommunications products, and has used its NOKIA mark (Reg. No. 1,570,492 issued December 12, 1989 with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)) in connection with its goods and services since 1968. Complainant has also registered its mark worldwide with numerous governmental authorities besides the USPTO. Complainant also owns and operates the <nokia.com> domain name.
Respondent registered the <nokiamanagement.com> domain name on June 6, 2008. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a website that features numerous links and advertisements for third-parties, some of whom directly compete with Complainant.
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, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations for the NOKIA mark with multiple governmental trademark authorities worldwide, including the USPTO, adequately confer sufficient rights in the mark upon Complainant for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007) (finding that a trademark registration adequately demonstrates a complainant’s rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Morris, FA 569033 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 6, 2005) (“Complainant has established rights in the AIG mark through registration of the mark with several trademark authorities throughout the world, including the United States Patent and Trademark office (‘USPTO’)… .”).
Respondent’s <nokiamanagement.com>
domain name incorporates Complainant’s entire and unaltered NOKIA mark, while
adding the generic word “management” and the generic top-level domain
“.com.” As for the addition of “.com,”
the Panel notes that top-level domains are irrelevant under a Policy analysis,
and will say no more of it. The Panel
also notes that addition of the word “management” is insignificant because the
dominant feature of the disputed domain name remains Complainant’s NOKIA
mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that
the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under
Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 27,
2007) (concluding that the addition of a gTLD, whether it be “.com,” “.net,”
“.biz,” or “.org,” is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Experian Info. Solutions, Inc. v. Credit Research, Inc., D2002-0095
(WIPO May 7, 2002) (finding that several domain names incorporating the
complainant’s entire EXPERIAN mark and merely adding the term “credit” were
confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) has been satisfied.
Complainant asserts that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has established a prima facie case supporting its allegations, as it has in this case, the burden shifts to Respondent to prove that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Clerical Med. Inv. Group Ltd. v. Clericalmedical.com, D2000-1228 (WIPO Nov. 28, 2000) (finding that, under certain circumstances, the mere assertion by the complainant that the respondent has no right or legitimate interest is sufficient to shift the burden of proof to the respondent to demonstrate that such a right or legitimate interest does exist); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (holding that once the complainant asserts that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain, the burden shifts to the respondent to provide “concrete evidence that it has rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue”).
The evidence within the record suggests that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The WHOIS information lists Respondent as “Mike Kolade,” and there is no
alleged license or authorization on behalf Respondent to use Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is
not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See M. Shanken Commc’ns v.
WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA
740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly
known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)
based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record); see also Coppertown Drive-Thru
Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Nat.
Arb. Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not
commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no
evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the
respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).
Respondent’s
disputed domain name resolves to a website that features parked links and
advertisements for various third-parties, including Complainant’s direct
competitors. The Panel presumes that
Respondent has engaged in this activity for commercial benefit, given the tendency
from parked web pages to garner commercial click-through revenue for redirected
Internet users. The Panel therefore
finds that Respondent has not created a bona
fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a
legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access,
FA 180704 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 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 ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or
fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see
also Summit Group,
LLC v. LSO, Ltd., FA 758981
(Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 14, 2006) (finding that the respondent’s use of the
complainant’s LIFESTYLE LOUNGE mark to redirect Internet users to respondent’s
own website for commercial gain does not constitute either a bona fide offering of goods or services
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use
pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) has been satisfied.
Respondent’s disputed domain name resolves to a website that
promotes Complainant’s competitors via advertisements. No stretch of the imagination is required to
conclude that Complainant’s business could be disrupted through the redirection
of Internet users to links for Complainant’s competitors. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent
has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶
4(b)(iii). See S. Exposure v. S. Exposure,
Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent
registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the
complainant, a competitor of the respondent);
see also
Respondent has also sought to attract Internet users for
commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to Complainant’s
source and endorsement of the disputed domain name and resolving website by
creating the confusingly similar disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this constitutes bad
faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Nat. Arb. Forum
June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)
where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant
to its own website and likely profiting); see
also Zee TV USA, Inc. v. Siddiqi,
FA 721969 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2006) (finding that the respondent engaged
in bad faith registration and use by using a domain name that was confusingly
similar to the complainant’s mark to offer links to third-party websites that
offered services similar to those offered by the complainant).
The Panel finds that Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) has been satisfied.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nokiamanagement.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: September 19, 2008
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum