The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Domain Whois Protection Service / nan jing, Jiangsu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 3, 2013. On May 3, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 6, 2013, 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 May 7, 2013 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 amendment to the Complaint on May 7, 2013.
On May 7, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both Chinese and English language regarding the language of proceedings. On May 7, 2013, the Complainant requested that English be the language of proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comments by the specified due date.
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, and the proceedings commenced on May 15, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 4, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 5, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on June 14, 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. Language of Proceedings
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of proceedings or that the Complainant be allowed to file in English and the Respondent in Chinese on the grounds that the Respondent has not objected to the language being in English.
On the ground that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s language request and because on the website that the disputed domain name resolves to, the Respondent specifically claims to be closely related to the Complainant (which does business in English), the Panel determines the language of proceedings to be English. If the Respondent had responded the Panel would have allowed it to respond in Chinese. 5. Factual Background
The Complainant is the registrant of the trademark ELECTROLUX in many countries of the world including in China.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that claims, in Chinese, to be the after sales service centre of the Complainant in Nanjing, China. “NJ” is the common abbreviation used in China for the city of Nanjing. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark ELECTROLUX.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not registered any trademarks in the name Electrolux. It is not the authorized after sales service centre for Electrolux in Nanjing. Even if it was, the Respondent has not complied with the principles in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 for a reseller to use a trademark as part of its domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet visitors to its website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 7. Discussion and Findings
This is a relatively simple case. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark ELECTROLUX and the geographic indicator “nj”. The addition of the letters “nj” does not detract from any similarity and due to its meaning of Nanjing in this case exacerbates it.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted.
The Panel, accordingly, finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that suggests that the Respondent is the Nanjing after sales service centre of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that this is not the case, and that even if it was, it would fail to fulfill the elements required under Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The third element of the UDRP is made out. 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.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: June 28, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy