WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. InterikEA.com, INC.
Case No. D2006-1379
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems B.V., Netherlands, represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States of America.
The Respondent is InterikEA.com, INC., California, United States of America.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 26, 2006. On October 31, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows a request for registrar verification in connection with the Dispute Domain Name. On October 31 2006, Tucows transmitted by email to the Center its verification response. In response to a notification on November 6, 2006, by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on November 9, 2006. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), 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 November 10, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for the Response was November�30, 2006. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 1, 2006.
The Center appointed Michael D. Cover as the sole panelist in this matter on December�12, 2006. 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
As the Respondent has not submitted a Response, the Panel has decided this dispute based upon the Complaint in accordance with paragraph 5 (e) of the Rules.
The Complainant is the proprietor of the trade mark IKEA, which is registered in a wide range of jurisdictions and has been used extensively since the Complainant’s founder established the business over 50 years ago. The Complainant has over 230 stores in 34 countries. The Complainant operates a website at “”, which provides consumers with a catalogue for on-line shopping and also provides links to local Ikea websites around the world.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on April 22, 2004. It appears that, at various times, the Disputed Domain has linked through to numerous websites, including some selling furniture. It also appears that, at the time that the Complaint was filed, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to the home page of an entity called E A Skin Bacteria Psychology.
5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that there can be no dispute that it has strong rights in the trade mark IKEA. It points to its extensive registrations of that trade mark and also its rights arising from its extensive use of the trade mark IKEA, as well as the trade name Inter IKEA. It says that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates without alteration the Complainant’s trade mark IKEA, which makes the Disputed Domain Name confusingly similar to that trade mark. It states that the addition of the term “ Inter “ to the Disputed Domain aggravates the position, in that the combined term is then confusingly similar and in fact identical to the trade name Inter IKEA.
The Complainant asserts that there are numerous facts that demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. There exists no relationship, the Complainant says, between the Respondent and the Complainant which might constitute a licence, the Complainant says, and the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Name.
With regard to bad faith, the Complainant states that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain in bad faith because of the diversion of visitors to an unaffliliated website selling furniture. The Complainant states that the Respondent receives “ click through “ commissions for this. It further points out that the Respondent must have been aware of the IKEA trade mark and the Inter IKEA trade name prior to registering the Disputed Domain Name.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is clear from the submission of the Complainant that it has rights in the trade mark IKEA. It has extensive registration of this trade mark around the world and it also has built up rights based on extensive use. Part of the Complainant’s case is based on the rights in the trade name Inter IKEA. With regard to the trade name issue, the Panel prefers the view that a trade name does not give rights under the UDRP ( see Enmersan Granit Mermer ve Inşaat Taahhut Sanayi ve Ticaret A.S. v. Ibrahim Sahin, WIPO Case No. D2004-0439 ). A trade name can of course be used so extensively in relation to goods and services that it gives rights as a trade mark but it appears here that it has been used largely as the name of the holding company of the Complainant.
The Panel has no difficulty in finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trade mark IKEA in which the Complainant has rights. Panels have held on many occasions that there is confusing similarity where the entire mark in question is incorporated into the disputed domain name and where only a generic word has been added (see Dr. Ing.h.c.F.Porsche v. Lyn Davis, WIPO Case No. D2006-1098 ).
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that there is no relationship that would give rise to any license on the part of the Respondent, an assertion with which the Panel agrees. The Respondent has not responded and therefore has not been able to establish any of the circumstances that might otherwise show that it has rights or legitimate interests under paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant relies on paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, in that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trade mark. The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(b)(iv) have been met. Of course, the criteria listed in the sub-paragraphs of paragraph are not exhaustive and the Complainant also points to the famous nature of its trade mark. The Panel finds that this also demonstrates the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
7. Decision
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 Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael D. Cover
Sole Panelist
Dated: December 26, 2006
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy