The Complainant is VKR Holding A/S of Horsholm, Denmark, internally represented.
The Respondent is DomCollect AG of Zug, Switzerland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “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 March 6, 2015. On March 6, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 18, 2015, 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 March 19, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 8, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 9, 2015.
The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 2015. 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 Velux Group, the worldwide manufacturer of roof windows and accessories. The Complainant has carried on business as a designer and manufacturer of its VELUX products since 1941. It has a presence in some 40 countries throughout the world and sells in approximately 90 countries, including Spain and Switzerland. It incurs substantial marketing costs in numerous countries, including Switzerland, and has acquired a widespread reputation as a result.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations around the world in respect of the trademark VELUX including Denmark trademark number VR 1942 00950 registered on October 3, 1942, Community trademark number 651869 registered as of October 6, 1997 and Switzerland trademark number 353117 registered on February 27, 1987.
The Domain Name was registered on March 21, 2013. When the Complainant was notified of the existence of a website at the Domain Name it sent a letter to the Respondent demanding that the Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant but no response was received. At the date the Complaint was filed, it resolved to a SEDO domain parking page comprising links to a number of third-party websites including those of competitors of the Complainant and a link advertising that “this website is for sale”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its VELUX trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the 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 Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has undoubted, uncontested rights in the trademark VELUX both by virtue of its numerous trademark registrations around the world and as acquired through widespread use for over 60 years. Leaving aside the generic Top Level Domain suffix “.com”, the Domain Name comprises the VELUX mark together with the words “instalacion de ventanas”, the Spanish for “installation of windows”, and “Madrid”. In the view of the Panel, the addition of a generic expression that translates into“installation of windows” and the geographic name “Madrid” does not detract from the distinctiveness of the VELUX name. Indeed, given the nature of the Complainant’s VELUX products, the additional words add to the likelihood of confusion. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Panel considers that it is quite clear from the make-up of the Domain Name that it can only refer to the Complainant’s products. The Respondent has not been authorised by the Complainant to register a domain name incorporating the VELUX trademark. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint and has done nothing to dispel the strong prima facie case raised by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is in little doubt that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the VELUX mark in mind when it registered the Domain Name in light of the fact that VELUX is a made up word and the Complainant’s products sold under the VELUX mark are well known throughout the world. Furthermore, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate reason for the Respondent to register the Domain Name or of any legitimate purpose to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. The Respondent has registered a domain name comprising a widely known mark and used it for a domain name resolving to a domain parking page with links to third party websites and including an offer to sell the Domain Name. In the Panel’s view, this amounts to bad faith registration and use. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: May 7, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy