Telia AB v. quotes@DomainResearch.org

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Telia AB v Domain Research and Sales

Case No. D2002-0136

1. The Parties

Complainant is Telia AB, represented by Joanna Castenfors, Telia AB Corporate Legal Affairs, SE-123 86, Farsta, Sweden, hereinafter the "Complainant".

Respondent is Domain Research and Sales, Vytauto, Mail Box # 60, Radviliskis, LT-5120, Lithuania, hereinafter the "Respondent".

2. Domain Name and Registrar

The domain name in dispute is <telia.org>.

The registrar for the disputed domain name is Dotster Inc., 11807 NE 99th Street, Suite 1100, Vancouver, WA, 98682, United States of America.

3. Procedural History

The essential procedural history of the administrative proceeding is as follows:

(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a complaint, received

by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("WIPO") on February 11, 2002.

On February 26, 2002, WIPO sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of the

Complaint to the Complainant.

(b) On February 14, 2002, WIPO transmitted a Request for Registrar Verification

to the registrar, with the Registrar’s Verification received by WIPO February 26, 2002,

confirming that the domain name at issue was registered through Dotster Inc.

(c) On February 27, 2002, Complainant submitted an Amendment to the Complaint.

(d) On February 28, 2002, WIPO transmitted Notification of the Complaint and

Commencement of the Administrative Proceeding in Case

No. D2002-0136 to the Respondent, after having satisfied itself that

the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Uniform

Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, adopted by the Internet Corporation for

Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) on August 26, 1999 ("the Policy"),

the Rules for the Policy approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 ("the

Rules"), and the Supplemental Rules for the Policy ("the Supplemental

Rules").

(e) No Response has been submitted by the Respondent. Accordingly, WIPO issued

a Notification of Respondent Default on March 21, 2002.

(f) In view of the Complainant’s designation of a single panelist, WIPO invited

Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as a panelist. Having received his Statement

of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence of April 2, 2002,

WIPO formally appointed him as Sole Panelist on March 12, 2002. On

April 5, 2002, WIPO transmitted the case file to the Administrative

Panel. The parties were notified of the Appointment of Administrative Panel

on April 8, 2002.

(g) The Sole Panelist finds that the Administrative Panel was properly constituted

and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Administrative

Panel shall issue its decision based on the complaint, the Policy, the Rules

and the Supplemental Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English.

4. Factual Background

After the Complainant’s assertions, supported by the documents enclosed as annexes to the complaint, and undisputed by Respondent because of its default, the Panel finds the following:

Complainant is the leading telecommunications company and market leader within mobile communications, broadband/Internet services and IP (Internet Protocol)-based network services in Sweden. The Telia-group is furthermore the provider of a comprehensive range of products and services in the fields of IT and telecommunications, and the owner of trademark registrations for TELIA in more than 30 other countries worldwide, hereunder the United States of America and Lithuania.

The Respondent has registered the domain name <telia.org>.

5. Parties’ Contentions

5.1 Complainant

The Complainant asserts that:

The domain name at issue is identical to Complainant’s trademark.

The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name at issue. Respondent has nothing to do with Complainant or Complainant’s business, and there are no indications that Respondent would have bona fide interests in relation to the trademark TELIA.

The domain name was and is registered and used in bad faith.

TELIA is a well-known mark, and Respondent is evidently aware that the domain name <telia.org> corresponds to this trademark.

It is likely to believe that the Respondent deliberately registered the domain name at issue on account of the identity to the well-known trademark TELIA, primarily to attract Internet users to Respondents commercial web site <www.telia.org>.

The Complainant requests the Administrative Panel issue a decision that the contested domain name must be transferred to the Complainant.

5.2 Respondent

The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is thus in default. Respondent has neither made any submissions after the Notification of Respondent Default.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three tests which a complainant must satisfy in order to succeed. The Complainant must satisfy that:

(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service

mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of such

domain name; and

(iii) the domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in

bad faith.

6.1 Identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or a service mark

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trade mark TELIA.

6.2 Rights or legitimate interest in the domain name

The Panel has considered the allegation by the Compliant as to the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the domain name at issue, including the Complainant’s contention about the lack of any legitimate intellectual property right of the Respondent to the contested domain name. As a result of default, these allegations have not been contested by the Respondent.

The Panel has visited the <www.telia.org> web site of the Respondent in order to investigate whether there could be found any evidence as to Respondents rights or legitimacy of interest with regard to the contested domain name. The Panel did not find any such evidence.

Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the contested domain name.

6.3 Registration and use in bad faith

Complainant’s allegations and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration

and use of the domain name in bad faith has been considered by the Panel. By

not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances

which could demonstrate that it did not register and use the Domain Name in

bad faith.

Complainant has put forward evidence that his trade marks are well known, and

the Panel finds that these in all probability have been known to Respondent

when registering the contested domain name.

The web site corresponding to the contested domain name features commercial

services, such as an on-line casino. In its complaint, Complainant also adduced

evidence of several hyper-links to pornographic material from Respondent’s web

site, which have been removed after the proceedings were initiated by Complainant.

Respondent’s registration of the domain name at issue, and continuous use of

the same, thus appears to be an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial

gain, Internet users to its web site <www.telia.org> , by creating a likelihood

of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation,

or endorsement of this web site.

These are circumstances which constitutes evidence of registration and use

of a domain name in bad faith pursuant to Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has registered and used the domain

name at issue in bad faith.

7. Decision

The Panel has found that the domain name <telia.org> is identical to

a trade mark held by the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no rights

to or legitimate interest in said domain name. The Panel has further found that

the domain name has been registered in bad faith, and that it has been and is

being used in bad faith.

Therefore, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the

Panel decides to request that the domain name <telia.org> be transferred

to the Complainant Telia AB.

Peter G. Nitter

Sole Panelist

Dated: April 26, 2002

More cases by this complainant

• Telia AB v. Alex Ewaldsson; Birgitta Ewaldsson — D2000-0599 · itelia.net, itelia.org, teliaab.com · Split decision · 08 Aug 2000