The Complainant is Key Relocation Center AB of Göteborg, Sweden, represented by Dipcon AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Nurinet of Gyeongju-si, Gyeongsangbuk-do, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N. Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 5, 2013. On November 6, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 14, 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.
On November 14, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the parties in both Korean and English languages regarding the language of the proceedings. On the same date, the Complainant confirmed its request in the Complaint that English be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceedings by the specified due date.
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 in Korean and English, and the proceedings commenced on November 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 12, 2013.
The Center appointed Andrew J. Park as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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 Key Relocation Center AB, a Swedish corporation that has a long tradition with consulting businesses and people moving to and from Sweden. The Complainant has been in business for over 20 years. The Complainant is the trademark owner for the mark KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB, registered on May 25, 2007 in Sweden and owns various domain names containing all or part of the trademark, including and .
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 21, 2009, according to the verification by the Registrar. Internet users who discovered the disputed domain name were directed to a website displaying a notice from “Linecom Trading Co Ltd’s Internet Team” that “This Domain is for Sale & Under Construction Page”, followed by a notice that the Respondent was “looking for Investors in developing our new WebSite, .”
The Complainant sent the Respondent a cease-and-desist-letter on October 1, 2013, but the Respondent did not respond. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB mark. This is because the disputed domain name incorporates the dominant portion of the Complainant’s trademark, KEY RELOCATION.
The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or “Key Relocation”. The Complainant has no relationship whatsoever with the Respondent and has never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark in any fashion. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent intended to commercially profit from the disputed domain name by misleading Internet users searching for information about the Complainant's business based on the fact that (1) the website of the disputed domain name is not currently in use, (2) the website displays the text “This Domain is for Sale,” and (3) the website directs Internet users to the website “www.”.
The Complainant also alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that its trademark was registered before the Respondent obtained the disputed domain name in December 2009. The Complainant further contends that the website of the disputed domain name is not in use and clearly displays that the disputed domain name is for sale. Thus, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered to commercially profit from the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceedings
The Complaint was filed in the English language. It is noted that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Korean.
Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that, unless otherwise agreed by the parties or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel having regard to the relevant circumstances.
The Panel must exercise discretion judicially, taking into account fairness and justice to both parties with regard to all relevant circumstances, such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004; Finter Bank Zurich v. Shumin Peng, WIPO Case No. D2006-0432).
The Respondent in a number of previous UDRP proceedings has registered domain names in English with the Registrar (for example, Kshocolat Limited v. Nurinet,WIPO Case No. D2010-0577). Also, the information on the website under the disputed domain name was provided in both English and Korean, and the Respondent appears to have registered more than 21,800 domain names, many of which are in English. The Center, in preliminarily deciding to proceed with the acceptance of the Complaint in English nevertheless communicating with the parties in both English and Korean, indicated that it would accept a Response in either English or Korean, and that it would appoint a panelist familiar with both English and Korean.
On the other hand, if the language of proceeding were to be Korean, the Complainant would require translation of all correspondence, which would delay the proceeding and incur substantial expenses (Louise Rennison v. Milan Kovac,WIPO Case No. D2012-0211).
In view of the foregoing circumstances, the Panel determines that the language of proceeding be English. 6.2 Substantive Elements of the Policy
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy sets forth three requirements which must be met for the Panel to order the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. Those requirements are 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. These elements are discussed in turn below.
The Panel must decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable, pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of said Rules. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In the present case, the Complainant has provided evidence that it has registered trademark rights in its KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB mark. For the purpose of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the disputed domain name is not identical to that mark. The issue, then, is whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. In deciding this question, it is well established that the “.com” extension is generally to be disregarded.
The entirety of the disputed domain name includes the dominant portion of the Complainant's registered trademark – KEY RELOCATION. The words “Center AB" are of lesser significance in determining likelihood of confusion. See World Emergency Relief v. Chuck Thompson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0844 (held that descriptive word “relief” included in the complainant’s mark WORLD EMERGENCY RELIEF but missing from the domain name at issue , was of lesser significance in determining likelihood of confusion.). With the closeness of the marks, confusion is likely with the relevant public.
For these reasons, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB mark B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence in this case to support a finding that the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The general consensus of UDRP panel opinion on the issue of whether a respondent has rights or legitimate interests is set out in paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”). On this approach, a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such appropriate allegations or evidence, a complainant is generally deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
In this case, the Complainant has established a strong prima facie case against the Respondent. The Respondent has failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and, further, there is no evidence in the case file that would demonstrate that the Respondent had such rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant asserts that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services in connection with the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name. The Respondent in the present case used the disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark to bait Internet users to buy the disputed domain name, look for investors for the website “www.”, and direct Internet users to the website “www.”. The Panel finds no intention to carry out a business of offering goods or services under the disputed domain name. This shows that the Respondent was using the website solely for generating revenue for its own business under “” by creating consumer confusion as to the owner of the trademark. In the Panel’s view, this indicates no bona fide offering of goods or services. See Adobe Systems Incorporated v. Domain OZ,WIPO Case No. D2000-0057.
Further, the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant. The facts before the Panel show that the Respondent does not have a license, consent or authority of the Complainant to use all or part of its trademark KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB in the disputed domain name. Without such license, consent or authority, the Respondent apparently used the disputed domain name for the Respondent’s own business. This is considered as lack of any bona fide intention on the part of the Respondent. See Audi AG v. Mike Gillespie, Gillespie Auto Group,WIPO Case No. D2007-1850.
The Panel notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
The Panel further notes that the website under the disputed domain name is not for a noncommercial use, as it makes an offer for sale of the disputed domain name. It is not fair use either, because it confuses the Internet users as to the owner of the trademark KEY RELOCATION CENTER AB, and diverts the attraction the Complainant’s trademark causes to its own commercial enterprises. See Volvo Trademark Holding AB v. e-motordealer Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2002-0036.
Accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Panel finds under the circumstances that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Any one of the following conduct is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith:
“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(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.”
As already mentioned, the Respondent did not file any response to the Complaint, failing thereby to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate good faith in the registration or use of the disputed domain name.
Nevertheless, the Panel still has the responsibility of determining which of the Complainant’s assertions are established as facts, and whether the conclusions asserted by the Complainant can be drawn from the established facts (see Harvey Norman Retailing Pty Ltd v. Oxford-University,WIPO Case No. D2000-0944).
The registration of the disputed name that is confusingly similar to a distinctive trademark by the Respondent, when the Respondent has no relationship to that mark, is also generally sufficient evidence of bad faith (see Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403; Centurion Bank of Punjab Limited v. West Coast Consulting, LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-1319).
Further, there is no evidence on the record of bona fide use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name by the Respondent. As previously discussed, the Respondent uses the disputed domain name containing the Complainant’s trademark to bait Internet users to buy the disputed domain name, look for investors for the website “www.”, and direct Internet users to the website “www.”. There is no evidence of any intention to carry out a business of offering goods or services under the disputed domain name. This shows that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
Lastly, there is a history of prior bad faith findings in cases involving the Respondent, for example, LEGO Juris A/S v. Noori net,WIPO Case No. D2010-1705; Banco Bradesco S.A. v. Noori net,WIPO Case No. D2010-1553; Credit Industriel et Commercial S.A. v. Noori net,WIPO Case No. D2010-0729; Kshocolat Limited v. Nurinet,WIPO Case No. D2010-0577. The Panel notes that it can be a proof of the Respondent’s tendency to act in bad faith.
For the above reasons, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 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.
Andrew J. Park
Sole Panelist
Date: January 11, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy