The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is N//A, zhou qi jian of Jiangxi, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2012. On June 4, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2012, Directi Internet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 13, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 3, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 4, 2012.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on July 9, 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 the owner of the trademark ELECTROLUX used in connection with appliances and equipment for the kitchen and cleaning. The trademark ELECTROLUX has been registered by the Complainant in more than 150 countries.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 23, 2012. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that its trademark ELECTROLUX has been used in connection with appliances and equipment for the kitchen and cleaning since 1919 and has been registered in more than 150 countries.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the Panel issue an order that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such a requirement, a complainant must prove both its right in the trademark and the identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant had acquired trademark rights in the mark ELECTROLUX through registrations in a number of countries and regions, including China, which is the Respondent’s apparent country of residence.
Apart from the generic top-level domain suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “sh” and “electrolux”. The term “sh” may commonly stand for the city name “Shanghai” and the term “electrolux” is identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark. In this Panel’s view, adding a common abbreviation of a geographic name or an acronym to a registered trademark does not make the disputed domain name substantially distinct from the Complainant’s trademark ELECTROLUX.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name comprising of the Complainant’s registered trademark ELECTROLUX in its entirety and a generic acronym is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark ELECTROLUX.
Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserted that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
It is apparent to the Panel from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its trademark ELECTROLUX. The Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie contention that the Respondent was not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The lack of a response in this case leads the Panel to draw a negative inference towards it.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contended the Respondent had registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to these contentions.
The Complainant presents evidence that the disputed domain name is being used for the website “上海伊莱克斯煤气炉维修中心” (i.e. “Shanghai Electrolux Gas Stove Repair Center”), on which the Complainant’s trademark “ELECTROLUX” and the logo “伊莱克斯”(Chinese transliteration of “ELECTROLUX”) are prominently and repeatedly shown. On the website, the Respondent states that it provides “professional repair services for ELECTROLUX electronics” (“提供专业伊莱克斯电器维修服务”) and presents photos of so-called ELECTROLUX products, such as a gas stove and a kitchen hood without any clear disclaimer or other explanation of the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. At the bottom of the website, there are many commercial links to a variety of services and businesses.
The Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is highly likely to attract and confuse consumers with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name’s website ”www.” or of the products on that website. In this Panel’s view, it is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).
Therefore, the Complainant successfully proves the third element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Dated: July 23, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy