Nokia Corporation v. MJK Communications Limited c/o Domain Admin
Claim Number: FA0511000601356
Complainant is Nokia Corporation (“Complainant”), represented by Jane Mutimear of Bird & Bird, 90 Fetter Lane, London, EC4A 1JP, GB. Respondent is MJK Communications Limited c/o Domain Admin (“Respondent”), PO Box 27393, London E12 5WN, GB.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN
NAME
The domain name at issue is <nokia-usa.com>, registered with Enom, 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 November 23, 2005; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 5, 2005.
On November 28, 2005, Enom, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <nokia-usa.com> domain name is registered with Enom, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Enom, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Enom, 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 December 9, 2005, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the "Commencement Notification"), setting a deadline of December 29, 2005 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@nokia-usa.com by e-mail.
Having received no response from Respondent, the National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On January 4, 2006, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by 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 <nokia-usa.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s NOKIA mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <nokia-usa.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <nokia-usa.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Nokia Corporation, is in the business of
telecommunications, specifically in the area of mobile phones. Complainant operates under its NOKIA mark,
which it has registered in the United Kingdom and with the United States Patent
and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (i.e. Reg. No. 1,570,492 issued December 12,
1989).
Complainant has developed tremendous goodwill and reputation
in its NOKIA mark throughout the world through extensive media attention and
advertising over many years. Since
1991, Complainant has operated a website at the <nokia.com> domain name,
through which Complainant has developed a strong Internet presence.
Respondent registered the <nokia-usa.com> domain name on December 2, 2003. The domain name resolves to a directory website that displays links to several competing products and services. The website also uses Complainant’s NOKIA mark at the top of the page and in several of the links.
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.
Through its registration with the USPTO, Complainant has
established rights in the NOKIA mark in association with Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vivendi Universal Games v.
XBNetVentures Inc., FA 198803 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 11, 2003)
(“Complainant's federal trademark registrations establish Complainant's rights
in the BLIZZARD mark.”); see also Innomed
Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171
(Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (“Registration of the NASAL-AIRE mark with the
USPTO establishes Complainant's rights in the mark.”).
The <nokia-usa.com> domain name registered by Respondent includes Complainant’s NOKIA mark in its entirety, adding only a hyphen and the geographic designation “usa.” The additions of a hyphen and “usa” are not sufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s registered mark. Thus, the Panel concludes that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Sports Auth. Mich. Inc. v. Batu 5, FA 176541 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 23, 2003) (“The addition of a hyphen to Complainant's mark does not create a distinct characteristic capable of overcoming a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) confusingly similar analysis.”); see also JVC Americas Corp. v. Macafee, CPR007 (CPR Nov. 10, 2000) (finding that the domain name registered by the respondent, <jvc-america.com>, is substantially similar to, and nearly identical to the complainant's JVC mark).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The initial burden under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) is on Complainant to prove that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once Complainant has made a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to the directions provided in Policy ¶ 4(c). See Compagnie Generale des Matieres Nucleaires v. Greenpeace Int’l, D2001-0376 (WIPO May 14, 2001) (describing the burden shifting from the complainant to the respondent regarding rights and legitimate interests); see also Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000) (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 Panel finds that Complainant has presented a prima facie case, and the Panel now chooses to consider whether an evaluation of all the evidence demonstrates rights or legitimate interests for Respondent under Policy ¶ 4(c).
There is nothing in the record, including the WHOIS information, indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the <nokia-usa.com> domain name. Therefore, the Panel determines that Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also Gallup, Inc. v. Amish Country Store, FA 96209 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 23, 2001) (finding that the respondent does not have rights in a domain name when the respondent is not known by the mark); see also RMO, Inc. v. Burbridge, FA 96949 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2001) (interpreting Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) "to require a showing that one has been commonly known by the domain name prior to registration of the domain name to prevail").
The <nokia-usa.com> domain name is being used to operate a commercial website that displays links to various third-party websites, including several that compete with Complainant. The Panel does not find a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) where Respondent is using Complainant’s NOKIA mark to operate a website that displays links for the purpose of earning referral fees. Furthermore, such use for Respondent’s commercial gain does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name under 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 WeddingChannel.com Inc. v. Vasiliev, FA 156716 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 12, 2003) (finding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to websites unrelated to the complainant’s mark, websites where the respondent presumably receives a referral fee for each misdirected Internet user, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services as contemplated by the Policy); see also Golden Bear Int’l, Inc. v. Kangdeock-ho, FA 190644 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 17, 2003) (“Respondent's use of a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark to divert Internet users to websites unrelated to Complainant's business does not represent 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).”).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent’s use of the <nokia-usa.com> domain name to divert Internet users searching for Complainant’s services to Respondent’s directory website demonstrates Respondent’s intent to attract Internet users to its website by creating confusion with Complainant’s mark. The registration and use of a domain name containing Complainant’s NOKIA mark to divert Internet users for Respondent’s commercial gain is evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002) (finding that if the respondent profits from its diversionary use of the complainant's mark when the domain name resolves to commercial websites and the respondent fails to contest the complaint, it may be concluded that the respondent is using the domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Drs. Foster & Smith, Inc. v. Lalli, FA 95284 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2000) (finding bad faith where the respondent directed Internet users seeking the complainant’s site to its own website for commercial gain); see also Nokia Corp. v. Private, D2000-1271 (WIPO Nov. 3, 2000) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the domain name resolved to a website that offered similar products as those sold under the complainant’s famous mark).
Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <nokia-usa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
James A. Carmody, Esq., Panelist
Dated: January 16, 2006
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National
Arbitration Forum