Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/d2008-1916.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:09:16+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Deutsche Telekom AG of Bonn, Germany, represented by Lovells LLP, Germany.
The Respondent is Pluto Domain Services Private Limited of Maharashtra, India.
The disputed domain name <t-mobilstore.com> is registered with Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 16, 2008. On December 17, 2008, the Center transmitted by email to Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names <t-mobilstore.com>, <t-mobilepuertorico.com> and <tmobilepuertorico.com>. On December 19, 2008, Lead Networks Domains Pvt. Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing different registrants for each of three domain names and providing contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 19, 2008 providing the registrants' and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint, noting that if the latter cannot be shown (at least on a prima facie basis) to be the same or related entities, it may be appropriate (pursuant to Rule 3(c) of the Policy) to file separate Complaints against each unrelated domain name holder. On January 12, 2009, the Complainant withdrew the original Complaint and elected to file a separate amended Complaint with respect to the domain name <t-mobilstore.com> on January 14, 2009. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 20, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 9, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 10, 2009.
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on February 23, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
The Complainant is Europe's largest telecommunications company and one of the worldwide engines of innovation in the industry. The Complainant covers the entire spectrum of modern telecommunications.
The Complainant's subsidiary T-Mobile International AG & Co. KG (T-Mobile) is one of the largest GSM mobile communications providers in the world. T-Mobile offers all digital voice, messaging and high-speed data services to nearly 120 million customers worldwide.
T-Mobile is the corporate name under which the Complainant's business in the mobile communications sector is conducted.
The Complainant has registered a large number of national, Community and international trademarks reflecting the term “T-Mobile”, including, inter alia, Indian trademarks No. 1247181 and No. 1327567, International Registrations No. 680034 and No. 864393 and European Community Trademark No. 485441. Besides, the Complainant has also registered a number of trademarks for the designation “T-Mobil”, such as European Community trademark No. 214452 and International Registration No. 660483.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 10, 2008.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks T-MOBIL and T-MOBILE. The term “t-mobil”, which is also almost identical to the designation “T-Mobile” that is internationally used to identify the Complainant, is the dominant and distinctive component of the domain name. The addition of the generic term “store” does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks. Due to the tremendous reputation of the trademarks T-MOBILE and T-MOBIL, the term “t-mobil” is considered by the public as the dominant component of the disputed domain name, while the term “store” is a mere descriptive addition and therefore can be disregarded in the assessment of a likelihood of confusion. The fact that the disputed domain name has a different capitalization in comparison to the Complainant's trademarks T-MOBIL and T-MOBILE has got no effect.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services and there is no indication that the Respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not, and never has been, a representative or licensee of the Complainant, nor is the Respondent otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's T-MOBILE marks. The disputed domain name <t-mobilstore.com> was previously used for a website with Sponsored Links. Presently, the Respondent does not use the disputed domain name to operate a website.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. It contends the fact that the disputed domain name was transferred to another registrant in this case to another privacy service a short time after the Complainant first contacted the then registered owner of the domain name by sending a cease-and-desist letter and this suggests bad faith on the part of the Respondent. In addition, the disputed domain name was registered using the private registration service of “Private Whois Escrow Domains Private Limited” of Mumbai, India, which allows the true domain name owners not to disclose their actual contact details in the WhoIs record. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has already been involved in several domain name disputes and that the Respondent has not answered any of the Complainant's attempts to contact the Respondent with regard to the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant contends that given the fame of the Complainant's trademark T-MOBILE and the use of the term “t-mobil(e)” in the disputed domain name, the Respondent certainly knew about the Complainant's T-MOBILE trademarks and business name when registering the domain name. The Complainant affirms that presently, there is no active use of the disputed domain name while <t-mobilstore.com> was used for a website with Sponsored Links.
In this respect it should also be emphasized that the Center must attempt reasonably to contact the Respondent, but can do no better than to send communications to the email and physical address on official record or provided in the Complaint. In the present case the Complaint and associated communications were sent to the physical and email addresses available in the WhoIs data base and provided by the Registrant. The Panel is satisfied that the Center has exercised the utmost care and has fulfilled its obligations under paragraph 2 of the Rules. See also Sanofi-aventis v. Protected Domain Services and Jan Hus, Husiten, WIPO Case No. D2008-0463.
Here, the Complainant has proved it has rights in the T-MOBILE Indian trademarks No. 1247181 and No. 1327567, T-MOBILE International Registrations No. 680034 and No. 864393 and T-MOBILE European Community Trademark No. 485441, which were all registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant has proved it has registered a number of trademarks for the designation “T-Mobil”, such as the European Community trademark No. 214452 and the International Registration No. 660483, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
Here, the domain name has two differences from the trademark of the Complainant “T-Mobil”: the addition of the “.com” suffix and the addition of “store” to the trademark.
The addition of the generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” is without legal significance from the standpoint of comparing the disputed domain name to Complainant's trademarks since use of a gTLD is required of domain name registrants, “.com” is one of only several such gTLDs, and “.com” does not serve to identify a specific enterprise as a source of goods or services. See also Ticketmaster Corporation v. DiscoverNet, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0252; Williams-Sonoma, Inc. d/b/a Pottery Barn v. John Zuccarini d/b/a Country Walk, WIPO Case No. D2002-0582 concerning the inclusion of a gTLD.
Many panels have established that the addition of words or letters to a mark used in a domain name may alter the fact that the domain name is confusingly similar to the mark. The addition of a generic word to a trademark will not avoid a determination that the contested domain name is confusingly similar. See Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Lindy Shaw, WIPO Case No. D2008-0985. The fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's trademark may be sufficient to establish identity or confusing similarity for the purpose of the Policy, despite the addition of other words to such marks. See Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The addition of a generic term does not serve to distinguish the domain name from the trademark, but may reinforce the association of the complainant's trademark with a domain name. See Viacom International Inc. v. Frank F. Jackson and Nancy Miller, WIPO Case No. D2003-0755; Caterpillar Inc. v. Roam the Planet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2000-0275; Société Air France v. RBlue, WIPO Case No. D2005-0290.
In this case, apart from the generic top level domain, the domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark T-MOBIL and the term “store”. The Panel agrees with the opinion expressed by previous panels that the generic term “store” and the gTLD “.com” have no trademark significance and, thus, their addition to the domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the domain name and the trademark (see Lilly ICOS LLC v. Mama Mia, WIPO Case No. D2006-0385; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Roelof Piersma, WIPO Case No. D2006-0225; Daniel Flachaire v. Raffaele Carofiglio, WIPO Case No. D2007-0163).
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate any right or legitimate interest in the domain name. Furthermore, considering that the Respondent has not contested that it currently does not use the domain name (it does not resolve to a website created by the Respondent or some other on-line presence of the Respondent), there are no indications that the Respondent could demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the domain name. (See, e.g. Pizza Hut International, LLC v. Kim Beom Sung, supra).
Given the above circumstances, the Panel concludes that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <t-mobilstore.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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