The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Mai Quy Cuong, BPT Viet Nam of Hanoi, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 9, 2014. On June 10, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 11, 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 16, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 6, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 7, 2014.
The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on July 15, 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.
On August 6, 2014, the Panel issued Procedural Order No. 1, which: noted that due to an administrative oversight, notification of the Complaint was not transmitted to one of the email addresses indicated for the Respondent; and directed the Center to transmit notification of the Complaint to this email address. The procedural order allowed the Respondent a period of five business days to indicate whether it wished to submit a response, and if it did, twenty calendar days to do so. The Center received no correspondence from the Respondent in regard to the procedural order. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Swedish company that sells various home and kitchen appliances using the trademark ELECTROLUX. It has obtained trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX in a large number of countries, including Vietnam, on September 14, 1994.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 9, 2014. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the 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.
In addition, the Complaint states, inter alia, that: the Complainant sells "40 million products to consumers living in 150 different countries every year"; ELECTROLUX is a "well-known and reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation . . . throughout the world"; the mark has "substantial inherent and acquired distinctiveness"; the Complainant did not give the Respondent any license or authorization to use the ELECTROLUX trademark; "there is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the rights the Complainant has in the trademark ELECTROLUX . . . at the point of the domain name registration"; and the disputed domain name "is rather fitted to create an impression that the Domain Name is associated with the Complainant." B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules permit the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent's default. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to prevail, the Complainant must prove that the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel determines that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.
The Complainant has rights in the mark, ELECTROLUX. The disputed domain name incorporates the mark in full, preceded by the text "phongbep", and followed by the gTLD ".net". The Complainant states that "'phòng bếp' translates to 'kitchen' in Vietnamese." Although the Panel is not able to confirm this point, it concludes that "electrolux" is the predominant portion of the disputed domain name, and that as a whole is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX mark.
The Complainant has demonstrated the first element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing. The burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has defaulted. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise.
The second element is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must also show that the disputed domain name "has been registered and is being used in bad faith," as set forth in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of a domain name. The Complainant, referring to paragraph 4(b)(iv), asserts: "[T]he Respondent is using the Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website." The Panel agrees. Internet users who resort to the disputed domain name are taken to a website whose content displays various ELECTROLUX kitchen appliances without making clear that the Respondent is not connected with or authorized by the Complainant.
The Complainant has demonstrated the third element. 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.
Ilhyung Lee
Sole Panelist
Date: August 14, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy