The Complainant is HemNet Sverige AB of Solna, Sweden, represented by Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, DIPCON AB, Sweden.
The Respondents are Leon Kristoffersson of Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic and Leon Henry of Vientiane, Lao People's Democratic Republic. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 101domain, Inc. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2012. On February 20, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to 101domain, Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 20, 2012, 101domain, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing additional registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 22, 2012 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 22, 2012.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 23, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 14, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 15, 2012.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 23, 2012. 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 a leading Swedish website for sale of real estate and homes. Its trademark HEMNET was registered in Sweden on April 27, 2007. The disputed domain name was registered on December 15, 2011. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it is the provider of Sweden’s most popular website for sale of real estate and houses and that it operates its main website at “”. It also owns several other similar domain names.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark because the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and the top level domain “.xxx” must be disregarded.
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and no consent has been give by the Complainant to the disputed domain name. There is also nothing to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Use of the disputed domain name in connection with adult-oriented services is not bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Following a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, an offer to sell the disputed domain for USD 2,000 was received from the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has to show that it has rights to a trademark, which is identical with or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name consists only of the Complainant’s registered trademark HEMNET together with the suffix “.xxx”. This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is obviously identical to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Next, the Complainant must demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The Complainant has contended that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name, namely having it resolve to a website with adult content, is not bona fide offering of goods or services.
None of these allegations have been rebutted by the Respondent and the Panel finds that the Complainant has made at least a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights of legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally, the Complainant must demonstrate that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Complainant is relying, inter alia, on paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, which provides that sufficient evidence of bad faith may consist of: (i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or the Respondent has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed 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 the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name.
Following the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, the Respondent sent an email indicating that it is negotiating the sale of the disputed domain name with a third party, who allegedly is claiming trademark rights in a different geographical region. The Respondent indicated that the price discussed with the other party is around USD 2,000.
This third party was not named, or the rights indicated, even after the Complainant asked the Respondent to do so. It is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent’s email was merely an ill-disguised attempt to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Panel also finds that the requested amount of USD 2,000 is in valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs.
Hence the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. 7. Decision
For 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.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 4, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy