Deutsche Telekom AG v. Namecheap Namecheap
Claim Number: FA1802001770163
Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG (“Complainant”), represented by Thorne Maginnis of Arent Fox LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Namecheap Namecheap (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <mytmobilealbum.us>, <mytmobilemail.us>, <mytmobilepic.us>, <mytmobilepics.us>, <mytmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilebeta.us>, <tmobilepic.us>, <tmobilepics.us>, <tmobilepix.us>, <mytmobilebeta.us>, <mytmobilemedia.us>, <mytmobileonline.us>, <mytmobilesecure.us>, <mytmobileapp.us>, <albumbytmobile.us>, <mobiletmobile.us>, <mytmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilealbumapp.us>, <mytmobilepictureapp.us>, <mytmobileshare.us>, <tmobilephoto.us>, <tmobilephotos.us>, <tmobileshare.us>, <tmobilesharenow.us>, <tmobiledirect.us>, <tmobileoffline.us>, <tmobilesharing.us>, <tmobilecloud.us>, <tmobileuser.us>, <tmobilealbum.us>, <tmobileprivate.us>, <tmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilepictures.us>, and <tmobilemsg.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he 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.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 1, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 1, 2018.
On February 2, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <mytmobilealbum.us>, <mytmobilemail.us>, <mytmobilepic.us>, <mytmobilepics.us>, <mytmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilebeta.us>, <tmobilepic.us>, <tmobilepics.us>, <tmobilepix.us>, <mytmobilebeta.us>, <mytmobilemedia.us>, <mytmobileonline.us>, <mytmobilesecure.us>, <mytmobileapp.us>, <albumbytmobile.us>, <mobiletmobile.us>, <mytmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilealbumapp.us>, <mytmobilepictureapp.us>, <mytmobileshare.us>, <tmobilephoto.us>, <tmobilephotos.us>, <tmobileshare.us>, <tmobilesharenow.us>, <tmobiledirect.us>, <tmobileoffline.us>, <tmobilesharing.us>, <tmobilecloud.us>, <tmobileuser.us>, <tmobilealbum.us>, <tmobileprivate.us>, <tmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilepictures.us>, and <tmobilemsg.us> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 13, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@mytmobilealbum.us, postmaster@mytmobilemail.us, postmaster@mytmobilepic.us, postmaster@mytmobilepics.us, postmaster@mytmobilepicture.us, postmaster@tmobilealbums.us, postmaster@tmobilebeta.us, postmaster@tmobilepic.us, postmaster@tmobilepics.us, postmaster@tmobilepix.us, postmaster@mytmobilebeta.us, postmaster@mytmobilemedia.us, postmaster@mytmobileonline.us, postmaster@mytmobilesecure.us, postmaster@mytmobileapp.us, postmaster@albumbytmobile.us, postmaster@mobiletmobile.us, postmaster@mytmobilealbums.us, postmaster@tmobilealbumapp.us, postmaster@mytmobilepictureapp.us, postmaster@mytmobileshare.us, postmaster@tmobilephoto.us, postmaster@tmobilephotos.us, postmaster@tmobileshare.us, postmaster@tmobilesharenow.us, postmaster@tmobiledirect.us, postmaster@tmobileoffline.us, postmaster@tmobilesharing.us, postmaster@tmobilecloud.us, postmaster@tmobileuser.us, postmaster@tmobilealbum.us, postmaster@tmobileprivate.us, postmaster@tmobilepicture.us, postmaster@tmobilepictures.us, and postmaster@tmobilemsg.us. Also on February 13, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 9, 2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD Rules, the 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant, Deutsche Telekom AG, has used the T-MOBILE mark continuously in connection with telecommunications products and services, as well as related goods and services, since at least 1999. Complainant has rights in the T-MOBILE mark based upon its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 3,219,515, registered Mar. 20, 2007). See Compl. Annex A. Respondent’s at-issue domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s T-MOBILE mark, as the domain names each contain the mark in its entirety—less the hyphen—and differs through the addition of various generic descriptors before or after the mark. Each domain name also adds the “.us” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain names. Nothing in the available evidence indicates that Respondent has rights in a mark identical to the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the T-MOBILE mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the names currently do not resolve to active websites. The names previously were used to redirect consumers to Complainants own website, or unaffiliated websites, including the website of one of Complainant’s direct competitors.
Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith. The registration of thirty-five (35) domain names incorporating Complainant’s T-MOBILE mark demonstrates a bad faith pattern of registration and use. Additionally, Respondent’s previous use of some of the domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant’s own website indicates bad faith. Respondent’s former use of other of the at-issue domain names to redirect to unaffiliated or competing websites if further evidence of bad faith. Respondent’s current inactive holding of the names further demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith. Respondent also used false registration information in registering the domain names. Finally, it is clear Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the T-MOBILE marks at the time it registered and subsequently used the domain names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered the disputed domain names on the following dates:
|
<mytmobilealbum.us> |
Jun. 14, 2017 |
<tmobilealbumapp.us> |
Sep. 1, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilemail.us> |
Jun. 16, 2017 |
<mytmobilepictureapp.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilepic.us> |
Jun. 30, 2017 |
<mytmobileshare.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilepics.us> |
Jun. 28, 2017 |
<tmobilephoto.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilepicture.us> |
Jun. 30, 2017 |
<tmobilephotos.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<tmobilealbums.us> |
Aug. 21, 2017 |
<tmobileshare.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<tmobilebeta.us> |
Aug. 21, 2017 |
<tmobilesharenow.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<tmobilepic.us> |
Jul. 28, 2017 |
<tmobiledirect.us> |
Oct. 3, 2017 |
|
<tmobilepics.us> |
Oct. 21, 2017 |
<tmobileoffline.us> |
Oct. 3, 2017 |
|
<tmobilepix.us> |
Jul. 28, 2017 |
<tmobilesharing.us> |
Oct. 3, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilebeta.us> |
Aug. 30, 2017 |
<tmobilecloud.us> |
Sep. 1, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilemedia.us> |
Aug. 30, 2017 |
<tmobileuser.us> |
Sep. 21, 2017 |
|
<mytmobileonline.us> |
Aug 30, 2017 |
<tmobilealbum.us> |
Jun. 24, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilesecure.us> |
Aug. 30, 2017 |
<tmobileprivate.us> |
Jun. 23, 2017 |
|
<mytmobileapp.us> |
Aug. 30, 2017 |
<tmobilepicture.us> |
Jun. 8, 2017 |
|
<albumbytmobile.us> |
Sep. 9, 2017 |
<tmobilepictures.us> |
Jun. 30, 2017 |
|
<mobiletmobile.us> |
Sep. 1, 2017 |
<tmobilemsg.us> |
Jul. 6, 2017 |
|
<mytmobilealbums.us> |
Sep. 1, 2017 |
|
|
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark; that Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
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."
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 or is being used in bad faith.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the usTLD Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
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(f), 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 (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.”).
The Panel finds that the 35 disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark, T-MOBILE. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. Respondent arrives at each of the 35 disputed domain names by adopting Complainant’s mark in its entirety and adding common generic words from Complaint’s industry plus the g TLD “.us.” This is insufficient to distinguish any of the 35 disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to any of the 35 disputed domain names. Respondent has no right, permission or license to register any of the 35 disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the 35 disputed domain names. Respondent’s use of the domain names does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the names currently do not resolve to active websites. The names previously apparently were used to redirect consumers to Complainants own website, or unaffiliated websites, including the website of one of Complainant’s direct competitors.
Respondent’s activities do not add up to creating any rights or legitimate interests in or to any of the 35 disputed domain names.
The Panel also finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the 35 disputed domain names herein. Complainant alleges that at pattern of bad faith has been established in this case. A pattern of bad faith registration can be established by a showing of registrations of multiple infringing domain names, and such a pattern can indicate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Microsoft Corporation and Skype v. zhong biao zhang / Unknown company / zhong zhang, FA1401001538218 (Forum Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that the respondent’s registration of three domain names incorporating variants of the complainant’s SKYPE mark reflected a pattern of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)). Complainant points out that Respondent registered the thirty-five (35) domain names which are at issue in the current case, all of which incorporate Complainant’s T-MOBILE mark. The Panel finds that the registration and use of the at-issue domain names constitutes a pattern and is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).
Complainant also claims Respondent’s previous use of the <tmobilealbum.us>, <tmobileprivate.us>, and <tmobilepicture.us> domain names to redirect to competing or unrelated websites indicates the names were registered and used in bad faith. Such use of a domain name can be indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See OneWest Bank N.A. v. Matthew Foglia, FA1503001611449 (Forum Apr. 26, 2015) (holding that the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a website which competed with the complainant was evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (“Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.”). Complainant claims that these three domain names were previously used to redirect to competing or unrelated websites. See Compl. Annex D. The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant further claims Respondent’s former use of the <mytmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilebeta.us>, <tmobilepic.us>, <tmobilepics.us>, <tmobilepix.us>, <mytmobilebeta.us>, <mytmobilemedia.us>, <mytmobileonline.us>, <mytmobilesecure.us>, <mytmobileapp.us>, <albumbytmobile.us>, <mobiletmobile.us>, <mytmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilealbumapp.us>, <mytmobilepictureapp.us>, <mytmobileshare.us>, <tmobilephoto.us>, <tmobilephotos.us>, <tmobileshare.us>, <tmobilesharenow.us>, <tmobiledirect.us>, <tmobileoffline.us>, and <tmobilesharing.us> domain names to redirect to Complainant’s own website indicates the names were registered and used in bad faith. Use of a domain name to redirect Internet users to a mark-holder’s own website can be indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Verizon Trademark Servs. LLC v. Boyiko, FA 1382148 (Forum May 12, 2011) (“The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name, even where it resolves to Complainant’s own site, is still registration and use in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant argues that the above-listed twenty-four (24) domain names previously resolved to Complainant’s own website. See Compl. Annex D. The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent registered and used the names in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant further contends Respondent’s current inactive holding of all thirty-five (35) domain names indicates they were registered and used in bad faith. Inactive holding of a domain name can be evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Complainant contends that the domain names are not being actively used. See Compl. Annex D. The Panel finds that Respondent’s purported inactive holding of the domain names to be evidence of its bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Complainant also contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's T-MOBILE mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain names without actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. Given the fame of the mark and the pattern of bad faith as well as the totality of the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s prior rights in and to the trademark T-MOBILE.
Finally, Complainant contends Respondent has provided false contact information in connection with the registration of the disputed domain names. Use of false contact information in registering a domain name can be evidence of bad faith registration per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Farouk Systems, Inc. v. Jack King / SLB, FA1505001618704 (Forum June 19, 2015) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) where the respondent had provided false contact information when registering the disputed domain name). Complainant claims that Respondent’s provided name (“Edward Scissorhands”), address (in the city of “Dirtydraws, FL”), and contact phone number (which is non-functional) are false, and indicative of Respondent’s bad faith. See Compl. Annex D (WHOIS information for the disputed domain names). The Panel finds that Respondent’s registration of the domain name with false contact information is evidence of its bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
As such, the Panel finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the 35 disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the usTLD Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mytmobilealbum.us>, <mytmobilemail.us>, <mytmobilepic.us>, <mytmobilepics.us>, <mytmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilebeta.us>, <tmobilepic.us>, <tmobilepics.us>, <tmobilepix.us>, <mytmobilebeta.us>, <mytmobilemedia.us>, <mytmobileonline.us>, <mytmobilesecure.us>, <mytmobileapp.us>, <albumbytmobile.us>, <mobiletmobile.us>, <mytmobilealbums.us>, <tmobilealbumapp.us>, <mytmobilepictureapp.us>, <mytmobileshare.us>, <tmobilephoto.us>, <tmobilephotos.us>, <tmobileshare.us>, <tmobilesharenow.us>, <tmobiledirect.us>, <tmobileoffline.us>, <tmobilesharing.us>, <tmobilecloud.us>, <tmobileuser.us>, <tmobilealbum.us>, <tmobileprivate.us>, <tmobilepicture.us>, <tmobilepictures.us>, and <tmobilemsg.us> domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: March 15, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page