Complainant is Nokia Corporation, represented by Net Searchers International Ltd, Jenny Settergren, Elysium House, 126-128 New King’s Road, London SW6 4LZ, United Kingdom, hereinafter the "Complainant".

Respondent is Cambridge, 3555 NW 74^th Avenue, Miami, FL, United States of America, hereinafter the "Respondent".

The domain name in dispute is <navi.biz >, hereinafter the "Domain Name".

The registrar for the Domain Name is iHoldings.com, Inc. d/b/a/ DotRegistrar.com, 13205 SW 137^th Ave. Suite #133 – Miami, FL 33186, United States of America.

(a) Complainant initiated the proceeding by the filing of a Complaint, received by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 25, 2002, by electronic mail and in hard copy on April 30, 2002. On April 26, 2002, the Center sent an Acknowledgement of Receipt of STOP Complaint to the Complainant.

(b) On May 27, 2002, the Center transmitted the Notification of STOP Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding to the Respondent, after having satisfied itself that the Complainant had complied with all formal requirements pursuant to the Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy for .BIZ ("STOP") adopted by NeuLevel Inc. and approved by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN") on May 11, 2001, the Rules for Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy (the "STOP Rules") and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Start-up Trademark Opposition Policy for .BIZ (the "WIPO Supplemental STOP Rules"). The Notification advised that the last day for the Respondent to send a Response to the Complainant and to the Center, was June 16, 2002.

(c) On July 2, 2002, the Center sent a Notice of Default to Respondent.

(d) The Center invited Mr. Peter Nitter to serve as a panelist. Having received his Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, the Center appointed him and notified the parties of Appointment of Administrative Panel on July 16, 2002.

(e) The Administrative Panel finds that it is properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the STOP, the STOP Rules and the WIPO STOP Supplemental Rules, and shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the STOP, the STOP Rules and the WIPO Supplemental STOP Rules. The proceedings have been conducted in English.

The Complainant has registered the trademark NAVI in various jurisdictions worldwide, including the US where the Respondent is located. In the US the trademark NAVI is registered in Class 9 and has registration number 2418568.

These trademarks are registered for and used by the Complainant’s mobile phone interface, the trademark referring specifically to a concept that reduces the number of keys on a phone’s key pad.

Respondent has registered the Domain Name <navi.biz>.

There is no web page activated under the Domain Name.

The Complainant is the proprietor of the trademark NAVI that is registered and used in a great number of countries worldwide including the US where the Respondent is located according to the Whois database of Neulevel.

The Domain Name in question consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark NAVI in combination with the generic Top Level Domain .BIZ. This Domain Name is identical to the numerous trademark registrations of the word NAVI held by the Complainant. The inclusion of the Top Level Domain designator .BIZ in the Domain Name does not serve to distinguish that name from Complainant’s mark in any way.

The Complainant claims that in its investigation it has not found any facts or elements to justify the Respondent’s prior rights or legitimate connection to the name NAVI and therefore the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

The Complainant has not given any consent, license or authorization to the Respondent for the use or registration of the Domain Name registered by the Respondent.

When the Respondent filed an application for <navi.biz>, the Respondent got a notice of the Complainant’s trademark rights, but ignored this information and proceeded with the registration of the infringing name. Against this background, it must be clear that the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

The Domain Name is expressly offered for sale by the Respondent in their registration details. This indicates that the Domain Name was registered primarily for the purpose of selling it for more than the Respondent’s registration fees, which is evidence of bad faith in Paragraph 4 b i) of the STOP.

The fact that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in the name of Cambridge and not in its real name, and provided a false fax number only strengthens the argument that the registration was done in bad faith.

The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is thus in default.

Paragraph 15(a) of the STOP Rules instructs the Administrative Panel as to the principles the Administrative Panel is to use in determining the dispute:

"A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the STOP, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the STOP directs that Complainant must prove each of the following:

(1) that the Domain Name registered by Respondent is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and,

(2) that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and,

(3) that the Domain Name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

Based on the evidence the Panel finds that the Complainant has rights to the trademark NAVI.

The Domain Name in question consists of the Complainant’s registered trademark NAVI in combination with the generic Top Level Domain .BIZ. This Domain Name is identical to the trademark NAVI held by the Complainant. The inclusion of the Top Level Domain designator .BIZ in the Domain Name does not serve to distinguish that name from Complainant’s mark.

The Domain Name is identical to the trademark NAVI registered by the Complainant.

The Panel has considered the allegations by the Complainant as to the lack of rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name.

The Complainant has not given any consent, license or authorization to the Respondent for the use or registration of the Domain Name registered by the Respondent.

At present the Domain Name does not resolve to any active web site, and so the Panel could not find any evidence as to the Respondent’s rights or legitimacy of interest with regard to the Domain Name on the web site itself.

As a result of default, the Respondent has not contested the allegations put forward by the Complainant. Neither has Respondent presented any evidence of use or preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Panel has considered Complainant’s allegations and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith.

According to STOP Paragraph 4(b)(i) and for the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), circumstances indicating that someone has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, shall be considered evidence of registration or use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Respondent filed an application for <navi.biz>, and was then informed about the Complainant’s alleged trademark rights. The Respondent still proceeded with the registration of the Domain Name.

In a transcript of the WHOIS database for .BIZ provided to the panel by the Complainant, one can read, among other information, about the Domain Name <navi.biz>:

"Administrative Contact Address1: THIS DOMAIN IS FOR SALE

Administrative Contact Address2: 3555 NW 74th Avenue"

Based on the facts above, and the fact that it seems to be more than just accidental resemblance between the Respondent and a company with the same address and the same phone number named "DomainCollection.com", it is likely that the Domain Name was registered for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name for profit. Eventhough it has not been proven that the Respondent plan to sell, rent, or otherwise transfer the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant the Panel finds that the circumstances in this case indicate that the Domain Name was registered in bad faith.

By not submitting a response, Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances that could demonstrate that it did not register the Domain Name in bad faith.

Based on the above discussion, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith.

With specific reference to Paragraphs 4(i) of the STOP and 15 of the STOP Rules, the Panel has found that the Domain Name <navi.biz> is identical to a trademark held by the Complainant, and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Panel further finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Therefore, pursuant to Paragraphs 4(i) of the STOP and 15 of the STOP Rules, the Panel decides that the Domain Name <navi.biz> be transferred to the Complainant.