WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION NTT DOCOMO, Inc. v. Nguyen Minh Dai, Vien May Tinh Case No. D2018-2477 1. The Parties

The Complainant is NTT DOCOMO of Tokyo, Japan, represented by Vision & Associates, Viet Nam.

The Respondent is Nguyen Minh Dai, Vien May Tinh of Ho Chi Minh, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China‑C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2018. On October 31, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 5, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 7, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 27, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 28, 2018.

The Center appointed Francine Tan as the sole panelist in this matter on December 5, 2018. 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. 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is Japan’s largest telecommunications company. It provides mobile services and LTE‑advanced networks nationwide and serves over 73 million customers in Japan. Outside of Japan, the Complainant provides technical and operational expertise to mobile operators and other partner companies and contributes to the global standardization of new mobile technologies.

The Complainant has expanded its distribution network across various territories and established offices/subsidiaries in the United States of America, China, Singapore, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Germany, Brazil, and the Philippines.

In 2011, the Complainant acquired an approximate 25% stake in Viet Nam’s largest mobile content provider, VMG Media Joint Stock Company, which owns a market share in Viet Nam of approximately 25%.

The Complainant began the use of its DOCOMO trade marks in Japan in 1992. In other countries, including in Viet Nam, use of the DOCOMO trade marks began as early as 2000. The DOCOMO trade marks are used extensively by the Complainant in relation to telephone products and services across the world. From 2011‑2016, the total number of products sold under the DOCOMO trade marks was 117,967,000.

The DOCOMO trade marks have been registered in over 46 countries including in Viet Nam (Registration Nos. 160542, registered on March 25, 2011, 179842, registered on February 23, 2012, 160101, registered on March 22, 2011, and 160541, registered on March 25, 2011).

The Complainant has registered domain names such as (registration date: August 4, 2011) and (registration date: October 23, 1997). The domain name registrations are used for the Complainant’s online sale and promotion of its goods and services.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 28, 2013. The disputed domain name resolves to website pages where the Complainant’s DOCOMO trade marks are displayed prominently alongside a logo of the Respondent. The Respondent by its website claims to specialize in the repair and maintenance of DOCOMO-branded products such as mobile phones and tablets. The logos and brands of other manufacturers such as APPLE, ASUS, ACER, and SONY are displayed. By clicking a logo, one is led to another website advertising the repair and maintenance services for products bearing the corresponding logo.

A cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent by the Complainant on November 15, 2017. A reminder was sent on November 30, 2017. The Respondent did not reply to these letters but shut down its website for a period of time. The Complainant noted that since around June 2018, the Respondent’s said website was reactivated and that the disputed domain name was this time registered under a privacy shield. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark in which