National Arbitration Forum




Nokia Corporation v. Nokiamasti a/k/a a/k/a jijja

Claim Number: FA0901001242583



Complainant is Nokia Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Britton Payne, of Foley & Lardner LLP, New York, USA.  Respondent is Nokiamasti a/k/a a/k/a jijja (“Respondent”), India.



The domain names at issue are <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, registered with, Inc.



The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.


Mark McCormick as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on January 14, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on January 15, 2009.


On January 15, 2009,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are registered with, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 January 20, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of February 2, 2009 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,,,, and by e-mail.


A Response was received on February 9, 2009, however the Response was deemed deficient pursuant to ICANN Rule #5 because a hard copy was not received prior to the Response deadline.


On February 16, 2009, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Mark McCormick as Panelist.



Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.



A. Complainant

Complainant, Nokia Corporation (“Nokia”) is a well-known manufacturer of a wide variety of telecommunications products including but not limited to, mobile phones and accessories therefor and devices and solutions for imaging, games, media and businesses.

Nokia has used the name and mark NOKIA in connection with its goods and services since at least as early as 1968. It has duly registered its name and mark NOKIA in numerous .jurisdictions around the world including, but not limited to Finland, the European Union, and the United States. The NOKIA mark is registered worldwide with nearly 200 governing bodies.  


Nokia is a leader in wireless telecommunications and is the world’s leading mobile phone supplier. Nokia has spent an enormous amount of time, money and effort in designing, manufacturing, promoting, and selling its mobile telephones and numerous other associated goods and services, through advertisements and promotions in newspapers, magazines, on television and through its web sites, including but not limited to <>. As a result, the name and mark NOKIA has become famous, acquired distinctiveness, significant goodwill, and serves to uniquely identify Nokia and its products and services.

The disputed domain names, <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous NOKIA mark. The disputed domain names include Complainant’s NOKIA mark in its entirety, adding_ the word “hot” or the word “masti,” which means “mischievous fun” in Hindi.  The added terms “hot” and “masti” do not add any distinctive features to the domain names that would be capable of overcoming a claim of confusing similarity.


Respondent registered the domain names <>, <>, <>, <>, and <>, all of which resolve to the website at <>, which is nothing more than a page of links including “Xxx;- Daily Update 20 Fresh Video” and “Mega XXX video.”


There is no legitimate reason for Respondent to have registered the subject domains other than to trade off the goodwill established in Nokia’s famous mark NOKIA. This is clearly established by Respondent’s use of the subject domain name to create a false association with Nokia. Respondent’s website directs users to pornographic materials for download to mobile devices. Respondent’s diversion of Internet users to these websites does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).


The WHOIS information provided by the Respondent for four of the five subject domain names is false, demonstrating a bad faith registration. The WHOIS information provided by the registrants of the domain names <>, <>, <>, <>, merely repeat one word in three address fields, provide no city designations, and provide false zip codes.

The <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names are so confusingly similar to Complainant’s famous name and mark NOKIA that an Internet user is likely to believe that the website at <>, to which all of the subject domain names resolve, is an authorized and authentic Nokia website, when it is in fact not. Internet users searching for authentic and authorized Nokia products using Internet search engines will be diverted to Respondent’s Website instead of to the authorized <> website. Thus, Respondent is disrupting Nokia’s business by diverting Internet traffic from Nokia to Respondent’s website.  

The Respondent uses the mark NOKIA in the subject domain names to redirect visitors to adult-oriented materials, which further demonstrates bad faith use.


B. Respondent

The Response does not address the merits of Complainant’s contentions. 


The Response was deemed deficient by the FORUM because a hard copy of the Response was not received by the deadline under ICANN Rule 5.  The panel does not reject the Response on that basis but finds that the Response has no effect on the outcome.



The disputed domain names, the <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOKIA mark.  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.  Respondent clearly registered and has used the domain names in bad faith.



Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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.”


Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the 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 the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;

(2)   the 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.


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar


Complainant’s registration of its NOKIA mark with multiple governmental authorities sufficiently establishes its rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(i).  See Renaissance Hotel Holdings, Inc. v. Renaissance Cochin, FA 932344 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 23, 2007).  Each disputed domain name contains Complainant’s NOKIA mark with additions of the generic terms “hot” or “masti” and the addition of a generic top-level domain.  These additions do not distinguish Respondent’s disputed domain names from Complainant’s mark.  The evidence shows that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOKIA mark within the meaning of Policy ¶4(a)(i).  See Google Inc. v. Xtraplus Corp., D2001-0125 (WIPO Apr. 16, 2001).


Rights or Legitimate Interests


Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, and Respondent has done nothing to meet his burden to overcome that showing.  The evidence establishes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶4(c)(ii).  See Yoga Works, Inc. v. Arpita, FA 155461 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003).  Moreover, the evidence shows that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users seeking information about Complainant’s products to Respondent’s website which contains links to goods and services unrelated to Complainant’s mark.  Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names within the meaning of Policy ¶4(a)(ii).  See Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 11, 2006). 


Registration and Use in Bad Faith


No doubt exists under the record here that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names is an attempt by Respondent to profit by misleading Internet users into believing Respondent is affiliated with Complainant and Complainant’s goods and services.  See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Bonds, FA 873143 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 16, 2007).  Moreover, Respondent’s use of the domain names to lead Internet users to a website with links to adult-oriented content is itself indicative of bad faith.  See Wells Fargo & Co. v. Party Night Inc., FA 144647 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 18, 2003).  Complainant has proven that Respondent registered and has used the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶4(a)(iii).



Because Complainant has proven all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <>, <>, <>, <>, and <> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Mark McCormick, Panelist
Dated:  March 2, 2009







Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.


Click Here to return to our Home Page


National Arbitration Forum