The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is S.T. ELUX 2008 S.C.P., Toni Perez Martinez of Manresa, Spain. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 10, 2013. On September 10, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 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 12, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 2, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 9, 2013.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on October 9, 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 one of the world's largest producers of retail appliances and has been operating under the trade mark 'ELECTROLUX' since 1901. It sells more than 40 million products worldwide each year and operates in 150 countries. The Respondent is not an authorised reseller of the Complainant’s products but operates a website offering repair services for the Complainant’s products.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 17, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that it has been registered and is being used, in bad faith. 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 trade mark in its entirety. The addition of a geographic term, the name of a town in Spain, does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trade mark. There can be no doubt that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by a name corresponding to the disputed domain name, or of a legitimate basis for its use of the Complainant’s trade mark. Moreover, given that the Respondent does not disclose, either in the disputed domain name itself, or on its website, the nature of its relationship with the Complainant, it would be unable to avail itself of the protections offered in panel decisions under the Policy for resellers and repairers. Rather, the Respondent appears to be attempting to profit from an impression that it is in some way an authorised repairer of products produced by the Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given the extent of the Complainant’s reputation in its trade mark and the strong likelihood of confusion that there exists a relationship of endorsement or otherwise between the Complainant and the Respondent, the Respondent appears to be profiting from confusion created by the disputed domain name. Moreover, it must have been apparent at the time of registration that such confusion would be inevitable. Knowingly profiting from confusion created between a complainant’s trade mark and a disputed domain name is a classic case of registration and use in bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name. 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.
Michael J. Spence
Sole Panelist
Date: October 13, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy