The Complainant is Tækker Group ApS of Arhu C, Denmark, represented by Sandel, Løje & Partnere, Denmark.
The Respondent is WP-1 / Charlie Kalopungi / AA7 Group Ltd. of the Seychelles. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2012. On June 7, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 2012, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing 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 June 13, 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 June 15, 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 June 20, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 11, 2012.
The Center appointed Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira 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. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Tækker Group ApS, a Danish company known for services in the field of property, project and business development. Its head office is in Denmark, but the company is widely known throughout Europe and does business also in Germany. Complainant‘s services are identified by trademark TÆKKER, which has been registered since 2007.
Trademark TÆKKER is registered in Denmark and in the European Community, covering services related to the Complainant’s core business. The Complainant’s trademark registrations for TÆKKER were granted before the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant also owns the domain names and . Proof of these registrations was duly presented. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical to their famous trademark TÆKKER. As the Danish letter “Æ” is normally rewritten as “AE”, the Complainant alleges that disputed domain name is basically identical with and confusingly similar to their mark, only with the inversion of the letters “a” and “e”. This inversion can cause consumers to be confused.
Further, the word “tækker” can be translated as “thatcher”, and has no relation whatsoever with multi-purpose portals. The word “teakker” has no meaning either in Danish or in English.
The Complainant claims not to have any relationship with the Respondent, nor has it given the Respondent permission to use its mark or to register a domain name incorporating this mark
The Complainant also states that the Respondent has no rights to, and is not making a legitimate use of the disputed domain name. On the contrary, the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is being used to direct Internet users to third partys’ goods and services, without any express mention of the Respondent itself.
Lastly, the Complainant states that the Respondent was unknown at the time the Complaint was filed as little information was available either on the website to which the disputed domain name directed or in the publicly available WhoIs database. This, according to the Complainant, is strong evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy, in paragraph 4(a), states that three elements must be present and duly proven by a complainant to obtain relief. These elements are:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Regarding the first of the elements, the Panel finds that the Complainant presented competent proof demonstrating its rights on the mark TÆKKER, which is duly registered in the countries where Complainant does business and consequently used regularly in those countries.
Further, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name, , is indeed an imitation of the mark and could certainly be considered confusingly similar.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the first of the elements in this dispute. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds that the mark TÆKKER is undoubtedly linked to the Complainant, since it is not only registered as a mark in its name in the European countries, but also is used to identify the Complainant’s business, being part of the Complainant’s domain names and .
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s contentions. The Complainant, in the Panel’s view, has provided enough evidence of the renown of its mark in Europe. Hence, the Panel understands that the Respondent could not be unaware of the mark and its direct relation to the Complainant. In addition, the Respondent is for the most part unknown, no mention being made to it on the site to which the disputed domain name directs. There is also no evidence of the Respondent being known by for the name “Teakker”.
Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, with the purpose of taking advantage of the renown of the Complainant’s mark.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name as a multi-area search portal, with topics that differ according to where the site is visited. The disputed domain name appears on the left upper portion of the page, which the Panel finds may lead the visitors to link it to the Complainant. Also, as noted above, there is no mention on the page to the Respondent or to any other party responsible for the contents of the site at the disputed domain name .
The Panel finds that the circumstances, as described above, shows that the Respondent obtained the registration and has been using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel, hence, finds the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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.
Alvaro Loureiro Oliveira
Sole Panelist
Dated: August 6, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy