Nokia Corporation v.
Nokiamasti a/k/a NokiaHoT.com a/k/a jijja
Claim Number: FA0901001242583
PARTIES
Complainant is Nokia Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Britton
Payne, of Foley & Lardner LLP,
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>, <nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net>, registered
with Godaddy.com,
Inc.
PANEL
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.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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, Godaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the
National Arbitration Forum that the <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>, <nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net> domain names
are registered with Godaddy.com, Inc. and
that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Godaddy.com,
Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, 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
postmaster@nokiahot.com, postmaster@nokiamasti.net, postmaster@nokiamasti.com, postmaster@nokiahot.mobi, and postmaster@nokiahot.net 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from
Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
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
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 <www.nokia.com>. 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, <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>, <nokiamasti.com>,
<nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net>
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 <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>,
<nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net>,
all of which resolve to the website at <nokiahot.com>, 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 <nokiahot.com>,
<nokiamasti.net>, <nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>,
merely repeat one word in three address fields, provide no city designations,
and provide false zip codes.
The <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>, <nokiamasti.com>,
<nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net>
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 <nokiahot.com>,
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 <nokia.com>
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.
FINDINGS
The disputed domain names, the <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>,
<nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net> 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.
DISCUSSION
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.
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
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).
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).
DECISION
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 <nokiahot.com>, <nokiamasti.net>,
<nokiamasti.com>, <nokiahot.mobi>, and <nokiahot.net> 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