T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovations Gesellschaft mbH
COMPLAINANT,

vs.

TechNova
RESPONDENT.

DECISION
File No. FA0004000094646

The above entitled matter came on for an administrative hearing before the undersigned on May 31, 2000, on the complaint of T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovations Gesellschaft mbH, (hereafter “Complainant”) against TechNova, (hereafter “Respondent”). Brigitte Diamond represents the Complainant.  The Respondent, having submitted no response, is unrepresented. Upon the written submitted record, the following decision is entered.

PROCEDURAL FINDINGS

Domain Name: T-NOVA.COM

Domain Name Registrar: Network Solutions Inc.

Domain Name Registrant: TechNova

Date of Domain Name Registration:  May 5, 1998

Date Complaint Filed:  April 24, 2000

Date of Commencement of Administrative Proceedings in Accordance with Rule 2(a) and Rule 4(c): May 2, 2000

Due Date for Response: May 22, 2000

Respondent did not file a response as required by Rule 5(a).

After reviewing the complaint and determining it to be in administrative compliance, the NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM, (THE FORUM) forwarded a copy of the complaint to the respondent on or about May 2, 2000 in compliance with Rule 2(a) and the administrative proceeding was commenced pursuant to Rule 4(c).  In compliance with Rule 4(d), The Forum immediately notified Network Solutions Inc., the INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND NUMBERS, (ICANN), and the Respondent that the administrative process had begun. The Respondent did not file a response as required by Rule 5(a).

On May 5, 1998, Respondent registered the domain name T-NOVA.COM with Domain Name Registrar Network Solutions, Inc. the entity that is the registrar of the domain name. On April 26, 2000, Network Solutions, Inc. verified that the Respondent is the registrant for the domain name

T-NOVA.COM and that, further, by registering the domain name with Network Solutions, Inc., respondent agreed to the resolution of any dispute regarding its domain name through ICANN’s Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The undisputed evidence submitted establishes that:

1. Complainant first used the trademark “T” and the name T-NOVA over five years ago in commerce in Germany, Europe and the United States in its logo and in conjunction with a number of its products.

2. Complainant has filed an application for registration of “T-NOVA” which is currently pending before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, (Application No. 75/876,431, filed December 20, 1999)

3. Complainant has registered the trademark “T-NOVA” in Germany (Reg. No. 7840 Bonn HRB)

4. T-NOVA Inc. is a Delaware corporation incorporated in the fall of 1999 and is a subsidiary of Deutsche Telekom, AG. The foreign shareholder of T-NOVA Inc. is the Complainant.

5.  Complainant is and has been in the legitimate telecommunications for a number of years in Europe and the United States.

6. Respondent registered the domain name T-NOVA on May 5, 1998.

7. The two domain names are confusingly similar to one another with the one exception of the “.de” country designation.

8. Investigation has not revealed that the registrant of the domain name T-NOVA.COM, (TechNova), is a legitimate and validly operating company doing business of any sort whatsoever.

9.  Respondent has failed to offer any evidence of legitimate business activity or any legitimate use of the domain name T-NOVA.

 10. Complainant has shown a legitimate and long standing  use of the T-NOVA domain name in its European operations and a legitimate attempt to secure the use of the name in the United States.

11. The evidence of widespread use of T-NOVA by Complainant allows the inference that the Respondent has had actual or constructive notice of the prior use of the domain name.

12. The following is evidence of Respondent’s bad faith in registering the domain name T-NOVA.COM.

a. Contrary to ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, Paragraph 4(b)(iv), Respondent, without any provable business purpose, registered the domain name T-NOVA.COM and does not use the domain name in any way ascertainable to the Complainant.

b. Attempts to contact the registrant, (TechNova) have been unsuccessful which can lead to the conclusion that incorrect information was given to Network Solutions, Inc.

 Complainant’s prayer for relief requests that the domain name T-NOVA.COM be transferred from Respondent to Complainant pursuant to Paragraph 4(I) of ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

CONCLUSIONS

1. The domain name T-NOVA.COM registered by Respondent on May 5, 1998 is so close as to be identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s domain name and trademark , to which Complainant has established its legal right and to which Respondent has failed to show or establish any legitimate right or interest whatsoever.

2. Respondent has acted in bad faith by registering a domain name for which it has no legitimate purpose and no actual use, from which it may be inferred that such registration was for the sole purpose of disrupting or interfering with the business of the Complainant.

3. Respondent has acted in bad faith by providing to the Registrar,Network Solutions, Inc. incorrect contact information regarding the actual registrant.

DECISION

     Based upon the above findings and conclusions, and pursuant to Rule 4(I), it is decided as follows;

THE UNDERSIGNED DIRECTS THAT THE DOMAIN NAME T-NOVA.COM REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT TECHNOVA BE TRANSFERRED TO COMPLAINANT T-NOVA DEUTSCH TELEKOM INNOVATIONS GESELLSCHAFT mbH.

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and has no interest in either the business of the Complainant or that of the Respondent and no known conflict of interest which would interfere in any way with his ability to serve as arbitrator in this proceeding.

Dated: May 31, 2000                     Honorable Douglas R. Gray

Retired Superior Court Justice, Arbitrator