The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Li Bing Yu, Guangdong, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Foshan YiDong Network Co., LTD. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 29, 2012. On May 29, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Foshan YiDong Network Co., LTD. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 2012 and June 5, 2012, Foshan YiDong Network Co., LTD. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
On June 6, 2012, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both the Chinese and English language regarding the language of the proceeding. On June 6, 2012, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit its comments by the specified due date.
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 June 12, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 2, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2012.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on July 20, 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. A. Language of Proceedings
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of proceedings or that the Complainant be allowed to file in English and the Respondent in Chinese on the ground that the Respondent had responded in English to a cease and desist letter in English offering to sell the disputed domain name. On this ground and because on the website that the disputed domain name resolves to, the Respondent specifically claims to be the Complainant or closely related to the Complainant (which does business in English), the Panel determines the language of proceedings to be English. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the registrant of the trademark “ELECTROLUX” in many countries of the world including in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 9, 2012. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that claims, in Chinese, to be the after sales service centre of the Complainant in Guangzhou, China. “GZ” is the common abbreviation used in China for the city of Guangzhou. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark “ELECTROLUX”. The addition of the letters “gz” do not detract from any similarity and due to its meaning of Guangzhou, in fact, exacerbates it.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not registered any trademarks in the name Electrolux. It is not the authorized after sales service centre for Electrolux in Guangzhou. Even if it was, the Respondent has not complied with the principles in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 for a reseller to use a trademark as part of its domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet visitors to its website and is also seeking to sell the disputed domain name for USD 1,000, which is clearly more than out of pocket registration costs. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of domain name cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark ELECTROLUX and the geographic indicator “gz”.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent attempted to sell the disputed domain name for USD 1,000, which, without evidence to the contrary given the normal registrations fees, will be more than its out of pocket expenses. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that falsely suggests that the Respondent is the Guangzhou after sales service centre of the Complainant.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(i) and (iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“(i) [there are] circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name;”
(iv) “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The third element of the UDRP is made out. 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Dated: 6 August 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy