The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is IvaneideFerraz of Jundiai, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 20, 2013. On March 20, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 20, 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 27, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 16, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 24, 2013.
The Center appointed Alejandro Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 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 4.1. The Complainant
The Complainant, Aktiebolaget Electrolux, is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and registered as a Swedish company in 1919. AB Electrolux is a leading producer of appliances and equipment for kitchens and cleaning. The Complainant is also one of the largest producers in the world of similar equipment for professional users. The Complainant has a global presence in the home appliances and appliances for professional use market. The Complainant products include refrigerators, dishwashers, washing machines, vacuum cleaners and cookers. 4.2. The Complainant's Trademarks
The Complainant has registered the trademark ELECTROLUX as a word and figure mark in several classes in many countries around the world (e.g., Brazil, Switzerland, the United States of America and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland). Most of these registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. 4.3. The Complainant's Domain Names
The Complainant has registered a number of domain names containing the term "Electrolux", for example, , and . The registration of these domain names predates the registration of the disputed domain name. 4.4 The Respondent
The Respondent did not file a response. The domain name was registered on November 20, 2012. At the time of this decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to a webpage. 5. Parties' Contentions 5.1. The Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant argues that the dominant part of the domain name comprises the term "Electrolux", which is identical to the trademark ELECTROLUX, registered by the Complainant as a trademark in numerous countries. Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark ELECTROLUX. The Complainant argues that its trademark is famous, a fact that would have been confirmed by a number of previous decisions by Administrative Panels under the UDRP (for example, AB Electrolux v. Ilgaz Fatih Micik,WIPO Case No. D2009-0777).
The Complainant avers that the addition of the suffix "jundiai" is not relevant and will not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name. This would be so particularly considering that ELECTROLUX is "instantly" recognisable as a world-famous trademark.
The Complainant asserts that the addition of the top-level domain "com" does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and is therefore irrelevant to a finding of confusing similarity. No Rights or Legitimate Interests; Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant asserts that it has not found that the Respondent has any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the domain name . It adds that no licence or authorisation of any kind has been given by the Complainant to the Respondent to use its ELECTROLUX trademark.
The Complainant adds that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. At the time of filing the present Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved into a web site offering services for Electrolux products. According to the Complainant, by so doing, the Respondent is trying "to sponge off" the Complainant's world-famous trademark.
The Complainant concludes that this use of the disputed domain name could not be said to be bona fide and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. Relief Requested
The Complainant seeks the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant. 5.2. The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Applicable Test
Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving that:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established to the Panel's satisfaction that it has rights in respect of the trademark ELECTROLUX.
The dominant part of the disputed domain name is the term "Electrolux". This term is identical to the ELECTROLUX trademark registered by the Complainant in different countries. The addition of the suffix "jundiai" – apparently making reference to the city of Jundiai in the state of Sao Paulo, Brazil – is insufficient to prevent the existence of confusion with the Complainant's trademark. In this respect, paragraph 1.2 of WIPO Overview 2.0 indicates:
"The first element of the UDRP serves essentially as a standing requirement. The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms […] typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion […]"
In the circumstances, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three non-exclusive examples under which a respondent can demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in disputed domain names:
"(i) Before any notice […] of the dispute, [the respondent's] use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) [The respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) [has] been commonly known by the domain names, even if [the respondent has] acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) [The respondent is] making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain names, without intent for commercial gain[,] to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue."
In this case, in light of the way in which the disputed domain name is used and the documentation provided by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy has been established. Accordingly, the Complainant meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In light of the evidence furnished by the Complainant, which is summarised above, the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy are met. The fact that the Respondent did not participate in these proceedings also points to the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith.
As a result, the Panel concludes that Complaint meets the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Alejandro Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: June 12, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy