WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Sas Adrian Case No. D2010-0336 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Sas Adrian of Bistrita, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 4, 2010. On March 5, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Melbourne IT Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 10, 2010, Melbourne IT Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Domain Name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd. and that the Respondent is the current registrant. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 12, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 1, 2010.
On March 13, 2010, the Center received an email communication from the Respondent in which the Respondent raised several questions. The Center responded to the email on March 17, 2010, and reminded the Respondent that April 1, 2010 was the due date for Response in the case.
The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 6, 2010.
The Center appointed Arne Ringnes as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 2010. The Panel found 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 a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and registered as a Swedish company in 1919, cf. Annex 8 of the Complainant.
According to Annex 6 of the Complaint the Complainant has registered the trademark ELECTROLUX as a word and figure mark in more than 150 countries. The Complainant has also registered the trademark as a domain name under almost 700 generic top-level domains (gTLDs) and country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) worldwide, among these: , , and .
According to the WhoIs information in Annex 2 of the Complaint the Domain Name was registered in October 2009.
The Domain Name is currently connected to a web site, only stating that the Domain Name is for sale. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademarks.
It is alleged that the Domain Name comprises the word “electrolux”, which is identical to the registered trademark ELECTROLUX. The fame of the trademark has been confirmed in previous UDPR decisions, for example, AB Electrolux v. Ilgaz Fatih Micik, WIPO Case No. D2009-0777.
The addition of the prefix “home” is not relevant and will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the name, ELECTROLUX, instantly recognizable as a well-known trademark.
The addition of the top-level domain “com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Domain Name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity of the trademark.
With reference to the reputation of the trademark ELXECTROLUX there is a considerable risk that the trade public will perceive the Respondent's Domain Name either as a domain name owned by the Complainant or that there is some kind of commercial relation with the Complainant.
The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. No license or authorization of any other kind, has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent, to use the trademark. The Respondent has never used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. No evidence has been found that the Respondent uses the name as a company name or has any other right or legitimate interest in the name ELECTROLUX.
Further, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark ELECTROLUX belonging to the Complainant has the status of a well-known and reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the whole Community and throughout the world. There is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the rights the Complainant has in the trademark ELECTROLUX and the value of said trademark, at the point of the registration.
In accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy the Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant on basis of the trademark registrations listed in Annex 6 of the Complaint has rights to the trademark ELECTROLUX which precede the Respondent's registration of the Domain Name.
The Panel further finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX as it incorporates the trademark completely. The addition of the prefix “home” does not imply that the domain name is distinguished from the trademark with the effect that confusion is avoided. Obviously, neither does the addition of the top-level domain “.com”.
In conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proved that the condition under the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i) is fulfilled with respect to the Domain Name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted any evidence supporting that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Neither has the Respondent proved that the disputed domain name: (i) has been used in a bona fide offering of goods or services; (ii) that he has been commonly known by the domain name; or (iii) that he has been making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, cf. paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
The Panel cannot find any indications of circumstances that would constitute the Respondent's rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or any other circumstances indicating such rights or legitimate interests.
On this background the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, cf. paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
According to paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, certain circumstances shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. These include in sub-paragraph (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the “purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name…”.
The Panel finds that in light of the present record it is unlikely that the registration of the domain name was a coincidence. The Respondent has not substantiated any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (cf. paragraph B above). The Domain Name is unusual and it is unlikely to have been registered or acquired without knowledge of Complainant. Further, the Panel notes that the Respondent has tried to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant. The Domain Name is currently connected to a web site, only stating that the Domain Name is for sale.
Based on this the Panel finds it probable that the Domain Name has been registered for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant for valuable consideration cf. paragraph 4(b) sub-paragraph (i) of the Policy.
Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith, cf. paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Domain Name, be transferred to the Complainant.
Arne Ringnes
Sole Panelist
Dated: May 19, 2010
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy