The Complainant is Louis Poulsen Lighting A/S of Copenhagen, Denmark, represented by Wallberg IP Advice, Denmark.
The Respondent is Spear Lighting, Amru Al-Kadhi of Uxbridge, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Mesh Digital Limited (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on April 15, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 23, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming the Respondent as the registrant and provided 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 paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a) of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 30, 2014. In accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules, the due date for Response was May 20, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 22, 2014.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on May 30, 2014. 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 paragraph 7 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant manufactures and distributes professional and private lighting products around the world under the Louis Poulsen name and trademark, for over seventy-years produced. The Complainant employs over 31,400 individuals in 74 countries, and sells its products in 179 countries around the world.
The Complainant owns a number of trademark registrations, including European Trademark Registration No. 002628063 for the trademark LOUIS POULSEN.
The Complainant also owns the domain name .
The dispute domain name was registered on February 12, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark LOUIS POULSEN around the word, including European Registration No. 002628063.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the LOUIS POULSEN trademark, except for the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") designation ".lighting". The gTLD designation ".lighting" adds to the likelihood of confusion because it relates directly to the products associated with the trademark. Rights and Legitimate interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's LOUIS POULSEN trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by that name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is not being used in association with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The disputed domain name resolves to a web page which contains links to third party websites, functioning as pay-per-click advertisements. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's LOUIS POULSEN trademark. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant's business and is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant's reputation. The disputed domain name reverts to a website which generates pay-per-click revenue. The Respondent, after receiving the Complainant's cease and desist letter, refused to transfer the disputed domain name and sought compensation in the amount of EUR 1000, exceeding the Respondent's out-of-pocket expenses. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the trademark LOUIS POULSEN by virtue of the European Trademark Registration No. 002628063.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' registered trademark LOUIS POULSEN. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark except for the addition of the gTLD "lighting". The addition of the gTLD designation ".lighting" does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trademark, but rather increases the likelihood of confusion.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant's trademark is well known in many countries around the world. The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant's trademark rights in the LOUIS POULSEN trademark, as it appears to be involved in the lighting industry, serving as a consultant over the past two years. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant's trademark. In the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent use of the confusingly similar domain name in association with a pay-per-click site is not evidence of a bona fide offering of goods and services.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Policy was designed to protect trademark owners from this type of abusive registration. The Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant's trademark when he registered and used the disputed domain name, as the Respondent appears to operate in the same industry as the Complainant. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: June 10, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy