Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-1409
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 02:02:02+00:00

Document:
The Respondent is Huafeng Lu aka lu hua feng of Shanghai, the People’s Republic of China.
The disputed domain names <nokiau.com> and <nokia168.com> are registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 20, 2010. On August 20, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On August 23, 2010, HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On August 24, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of proceedings. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
The disputed domain names <nokiau.com> and <nokia168.com> were registered on May 17, 2010.
The disputed domain names currently lead to an error page.
As evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name <nokiau.com> used to resolve to a website that included an announcement that the website was under construction and is suspected to include malware.
As evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name <nokia168.com> used to resolve to a website enabled users to download mobile phone software and applications.
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's marks, as they incorporate the Complainant’s marks as a whole as the distinctive part of the domain names. The addition of the letter "u" and the number "168" to the trademarks is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademarks. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the additional number "168" will cause consumers to believe that the domain name refers to the Complainant's products which names often consist of a number.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent used the disputed domain names to lure consumers to visit websites which disseminates malware. The Complainant argues that this use by the Respondent tarnishes the reputation of the Complainant and is not considered a legitimate use.
The Complainant further argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in order to benefit of the Complainant's reputation.
The disputed domain name <nokiau.com> differs from the registered NOKIA trademark by the additional letter "u" and by the additional gTLD ".com".
The disputed domain name <nokia168.com> differs from the registered NOKIA trademark by the addition of the number "168" and by the additional gTLD ".com".
The addition of a single letter or number at the end of each domain name does not serve sufficiently to distinguish or differentiate the disputed domain names from the Complainant's NOKIA trademark, as the additional letter or number is a non-substantial element, which in itself is not distinctive as it does not change the perception derived from the domain name.
The lack of distinctiveness is especially noticeable as to the addition of the number "168". It is known that the Complainant regularly uses numbers as names of its products. As a result, the number "168" cannot act as a distinguishing element.
Previous UDRP panels have found that the mere addition of a non-significant element does not sufficiently differentiate a domain name from a trademark: “The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark” (Britannia Building Society v. Britannia Fraud Prevention, WIPO Case No. D2001-0505). Also, “the trademark RED BULL is clearly the most prominent element in this combination, and that may cause the public to think that the domain name <redbull-jp.net> is somehow connected with the owner of RED BULL trademark” (Red Bull GmbH v. PREGIO Co., Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2006-0909).
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.
As evidenced by the Complainant, the disputed domain name <nokia168.com> was used to lead Internet users to a website that included an announcement that the website was under construction and to a website displaying a representation of a mobile phone device with Chinese characters on the screen. The disputed domain name <nokiau.com> was used to lead Internet users to a website displaying the Complainant's mark with the addition of the Chinese symbols for "software updating center". In the Panel’s view, the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademarks, in connection with mobile phones and mobile phone software and applications in order to promote a website other than the Complainant's is evidence that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks and of the Complainant’s commercial use of them, and subsequently intended to trade off the value of these. The Respondent’s actions therefore constitute bad faith. See Herbalife International, Inc. v. Surinder S. Farmaha, WIPO Case No. D2005-0765, stating that “the registration of a domain name with the knowledge of the complainant’s trademark registration amounts to bad faith”.
The disputed domain names currently lead to an error page. However, the fact that the Respondent does not use these domain names does not preclude the Panel from finding bad faith, having taken regard of all the circumstances of this case. See Mobimate Ltd. v. “World Mate” and Sachiwo Inagaki, WIPO Case No. D2008-1867.
As previously noted by the Panel, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. Previous UDRP panels ruled that “a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant’s site to the Respondent’s site” (see Edmunds.com, Inc. v. Triple E Holdings Limited, WIPO Case No. D2006-1095). To this end, prior UDRP panels have established that attracting Internet traffic by using a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark may be evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP in cases where such use is illegitimate.
In addition, the Panel makes notice of the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has used at least one of the websites which the disputed domain names resolved to in order to disseminate malicious symbian malware. Previous panels have ruled that dissemination of malware through the respondent's site constitutes bad faith (see Google Inc. v. none, Software LLC, WIPO Case No. D2009-1757).
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <nokiau.com> and <nokia168.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.