The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems B.V. of Delft LN, Netherlands, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Andri Supriyanto of Yogyakarta, California, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name is registered with Melbourne IT Ltd (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 26, 2013. On February 26, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 27, 2013, 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.
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 March 4, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 24, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2013.
The Center appointed Teruo Doi as the sole panelist in this matter on April 3, 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 owns over 1,500 trademark registrations for IKEA and IKEA variants in more than 80 countries around the world, covering goods and services in the International Classes 2, 8, 9, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42 and 43, among others. The Complainant has several trademark registrations valid in the United States with the most senior dated as early as May 22, 1979 (registration No. 1118706), attached as Annex 6 to the Complaint.
The Complainant is engaged in the business of operating a franchise system under its trademarks IKEA to have approved and licensed retainers engage in the sale of furniture and home furnishing products according to the terms and conditions of their franchise agreements, with the exception of the IKEA Delft store in the Netherlands, which is owned and directly operated by the Complainant. According to the facts stated by the Complainant, there are 338 IKEA stores in 38 countries operating under IKEA franchise agreements. In the United States, there are currently 38 stores operating under IKEA franchise agreements.
The Complainant has also registered the trademark IKEA incorporated in more than 300 generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) worldwide, among these, (Annex 9 to the Complaint). Furthermore the mark is in possession of distinctiveness per se. The awareness of the trademark IKEA is considered in the whole community to be significant, including the online world. In fact, in 2012, IKEA websites had over 1.1 billion visitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name in dispute consists of the word “ikea” which is identical to the registered trademark of the Complainant as a trademark and domain name in numerous countries of the world, including the United States and the generic terms “corner” and “desk”. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s world famous trademark IKEA. Furthermore, the mark IKEA is an invented name. It is an acronym comprising the initials of the founder’s name (Ingvar Kamprad), the farm where he grew up (Eimtaryd), and his home parish (Agunnaryd) and it has no meaning in any language other than a trademark identifying IKEA as a source of origin.
The Complaint submits that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted for commercial purpose to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known trademark as to the source, affiliation and endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or of the products offered on the Respondent’s websites. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use falling under the Policy, paragraph 4(b).
The Complainant requests transfer of the Domain Name to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any formal Response, and did not forward any substantive submissions in reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove that each of the following elements exits in seeking the transfer of the Domain Name:
(i) The Domain Name registered by the Respondent 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Name registered by the Respondent consists of a combination of the Complainant's trademark IKEA, followed by the words “corner” and “desk”. In view of the distinctive quality of the trademark IKEA, the addition of these descriptive or non-distinctive words after the word “ikea” does not affect the finding that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark IKEA, which has been registered by the Complainant as a trademark and domain name in numerous countries of the world, including the United States.
This Panel finds that the first element of the Policy has been met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant submits that, in registering the Domain Name, the Respondent did not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Hence, the Respondent obtained registration of the Domain Name combined with a set of descriptive words such as “corner” and “desk” and the Complainant’s trademark IKEA.
The Panel finds on the record that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, which showing has remained unrebutted by the Respondent.
The Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In view of the distinctive quality possessed by the term “IKEA” which is the Complainant’s well-known trademark, the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name consisting of the term combined with a set of descriptive words is in this Panel’s opinion a clear indication of the Respondent’s bad faith in obtaining the Domain Name registration. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy and paragraph 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed Domain Name, , be transferred to the Complainant.
Teruo Doi
Sole Panelist
Date: April 18, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy