The Complainant is Dansk Supermarked A/S of Højbjerg, Denmark, represented by Bech-Bruun Law Firm, Denmark.
The Respondent is Naginder Dubb of Walsall, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 30, 2013. On August 30, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 5, 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 September 6, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 26, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2013.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on October 1, 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 largest retail company in Denmark operating more than 1,200 stores, some of which are named Bilka. The first Bilka store was opened in 1970. The trademark BILKA has been registered inter alia as a Community Trade Mark No. 006852743 with priority from April 22, 2008.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 9, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark because it incorporates the Complainant’s trademark entirely. The addition of the suffix “int” does not remove this similarity because it merely indicates that the disputed domain name is the international version of the Complainant’s website at “”.
The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, because nothing suggests that the Respondent owns trademarks reflecting the disputed domain name or that the Respondent would be commonly known by that name. The Complainant has also not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark in the disputed domain name and there is no business relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Also the Complainant’s logo is being used on the website of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant states that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. At the website of the disputed domain name, goods are being sold under the Complainant’s logo. Hence it is likely that the Respondent’s intention was to profit of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s 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 includes the Complainant’s registered trademark in its entirety with the addition of the suffix “int”. The Complainant has contended that the suffix refers to “international”, which the Panel is willing to accept. It can also be said that the word “int” is in itself commonly known as an abbreviation of the word international. Hence the disputed domain name merely combines the Complainant’s trademark with an abbreviation of a common English word.
The Panel finds that the 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 legitimate 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”).
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by asserting that it has not authorized the use of the disputed domain name, that the Respondent is not commonly known by that name, and that the Complainant’s logo is used on the website of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has chosen not to reply to these contentions.
Therefore the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent offers a variety of goods under the disputed domain name. Also the Complainant offers a variety of goods under its domain name .
As the Complainant has asserted, the Complainant’s logo BILKA in blue letters is featured on the Respondent’s website at the same top left side of the website where the Complainant’s logo is featured on its own website. It can also be seen that the website is organized in manner similar to the Complainant’s website, even though there are some differences as well. It can furthermore be seen that under the “terms and conditions” of the Respondent’s website, it identifies itself as “Bilka, a joint-stock company with a capital of €533,875 and headquarters situated Denmark, registered on the Register of Companies and Commerce under the number CVR 35 95 47 16”. The indicated company registration number is the same as is given on the Complainant’s website.
It is therefore evident from the website that the disputed domain name is used to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent has 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: October 15, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy