The Complainant is Tefal of Rumilly, France, represented by Groupe SEB, SEB Développement, France.
The Respondent is Yurtpa of Erzincan, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 17, 2013. On January 17, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on January 22, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 together with the amendment to the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 24, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 13, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 14, 2013.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 21, 2013. 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 proprietor of the trademark TEFAL, registered inter alia as an international registration No R415.198 on December 18, 1974. The Complainant’s trademark has also been registered in Turkey on October 26, 1964.
The disputed domain name was created on November 18, 2009 and registered by the Respondent in November 2011.
The Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has resolved to a website containing sponsored links or links to the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s trademark is known worldwide and is notorious in Turkey, where the Complainant’s products are sold through stores called Tefal Shop.
The Complainant’s trademark is wholly included in the disputed domain name and the addition of the term “shop”, a common English term, is not sufficient to avoid similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has not affiliation with the Respondent and has not authorized the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing sponsored links or links to the Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent has disrupted the business of the Complainant in Turkey by blocking the registration of the disputed domain name.
Furthermore, the fact that the disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s widely-known trademark TEFAL, and that in Turkey, where the Respondent is domiciled, the Complainant’s products are distributed through stores called Tefal Shop, is evidence that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s rights in its trademark. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant’s registered and widely known trademark TEFAL in its entirety. It combines it with the word “shop”.
The word “shop” is devoid of any distinctive character and is not sufficient to render the disputed domain name different from the Complainant’s trademark. If anything, it enhances the association with the Complainant’s product by creating an impression that the Complainant’s products can be purchased from the website to which the disputed domain name resolves.
The Panel finds that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus view among UDRP panels is that paragraph 4(c) of the Policy shifts the burden to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or interests. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”).
In this case, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by contending that it has not authorised the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and that the disputed domain name is not used for the bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent has not contested these contentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is unlikely that the Respondent would not have been aware of the Complainant’s widely-known trademark when registering the disputed domain name, especially as the Respondent resides in Turkey, where the Complainant has explained that its products are sold through stored called Tefal Shop.
The Panel also notes that the disputed domain name appears to resolve to a so called pay-per-click site, where links to third party websites, including of the Complainant’s competitors, are provided. This means that the Respondent is likely generating revenue with the disputed domain name, which constitutes evidence that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Asian World Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-1415.
On these bases, 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
Date: March 6, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy