The Complainant is Marimekko Oyj of Helsinki, Finland, represented by Roschier Brands, Attorneys Ltd., Finland.
The Respondent is VisualWeb Group Oy, Juuti Jyrki of Vaasa, Finland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with EuroDNS S.A. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 19, 2014. On May 19, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 20, 2014, 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 June 3, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 23, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 24, 2014.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 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 the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark MARIMEKKO, which is registered inter alia as Community Trade Marks no. 6997712, 307496 and 8528739, with priorities from June 18, 2008 and July 4, 1996 and September 4, 2009, respectively.
The disputed domain name was registered on February 11, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark MARIMEKKO. The trademark is identical with the disputed domain name. The Complainant designs, manufactures and markets clothing, interior decoration textiles, bags and other accessories under the MARIMEKKO brand, both in Finland and abroad.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interested to the disputed domain name and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.
The disputed domain name is used to resolve to a pay-per-click website containing links to competitors of the Complainant. The trademark MARIMEKKO is a well-known trademark in Finland and has been included in the list of trademarks with reputation maintained by the Finnish Patent and Registration Office (“FPRO”). The Respondent has therefore been aware of the Complainant's trademarks when registering the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant’s registered trademark is the word mark MARIMEKKO. This is obviously identical with the disputed domain name, as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.mobi” may be excluded from the assessment. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The consensus view among UDRP panels is that once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of rights or legitimate interests the burden of productions shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of such rights or 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 Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant has submitted evidence that its trademark is well-known in Finland. It has, for example, been accepted to the list of trademark with reputation maintained by the FPRO. The Panel accepts that the trademark MARIMEKKO is a well-known trademark in Finland and that hence the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website containing links to websites offering goods competing with the Complainant’s goods. The Panel finds that using the domain name for a pay-per-click website directing Internet users to competing offerings means that the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark to create confusion among Internet users to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain.
Finally, this appears to be a classic case of cybersquatting. The Respondent has registered a domain name identical with a well-known trademark and made commercial use of the disputed domain name.
Hence, the Panel finds that the Respondent 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: July 4, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy