The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by BrandIT Legal AB of Sweden.
The Respondent is Mohamed Elaswany, Mohamed Ahmed of Omranya-Giza, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N LLC (“the Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) on September 3, 2015. On September 3, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 7, 2015, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 September 15, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 5, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 6, 2015.
The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on October 15, 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
According to the Complainant, AB Electrolux, it is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and is one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products. The Zanussi brand was founded in 1916 and stands for Italian invention with flair and its yellow-black colour combination and distinctive logo have made it recognizable throughout Europe and neighbouring countries for many decades.
In 1984 the Complainant acquired the Italian appliance manufacturer Zanussi making the Complainant the leader in household appliances for consumers and professionals. Zanussi is one of the Complainant’s strategic brands and the Complainant, which is a market leader in white goods and floor care products in Europe, has devoted substantial resources to advertising and promoting its trademark ZANUSSI. The Middle East is one of its growth markets. New product launches in the air-conditioner segment yield further growth opportunities in the Middle East. For example, in 2011 the Complainant acquired Egypt’s leading appliance manufacturer, the Olympic Group, and expanded its presence even further. In 2014 the Complainant had sales of SEK 112 billion and about 60,000 employees.
The Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top Level Domains (“gTLD”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”) containing the term “zanussi”. Examples are , created on November 17, 2005, and (created on December 16, 2002. The Complainant uses these domain names to connect to a website through which it informs potential customers about its ZANUSSI mark and its products and services. This can be seen at Annex 7 to the Complaint.
The Complainant has rights in the trademark ZANUSSI through its wholly owned subsidiary Electrolux Italy SPA. The Complainant holds several trademarks for ZANUSSI valid in Egypt where the Respondent is based. For example, international trademark registration number 1201466, designated to apply in Egypt and registered in 2014, together with international trademark registration number 404462, designated to apply in Egypt and registered in 1973. These are exhibited at Annexes 9.1 and 9.2 to the Complaint.
The Complainant also holds the Arabic transliteration of “Zanussi” in registration number 258519, registered in 2013 and set out at Annex 9.3. All of these trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name, which occurred on April 1, 2015.
The Complainant submits that, due to extensive use, advertising, and revenue generated as a result of the use of its mark ZANUSSI worldwide, including in Egypt, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of fame around the world, including in Egypt.
The Complainant also points out that it has previously successfully challenged several domain names through the UDRP process incorporating the term “Zanussi”, including in the following cases:
Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Maksim, SPD CHervinchuk,WIPO Case No. D2013-1224, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. “usa” and Ahmed Ismail,WIPO Case No. D2013-0829, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Manuel Perez Marquez,WIPO Case No. D2012-1224, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Maksim, SPD CHervinchuk,WIPO Case No. D2011-0403.
In the absence of evidence from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the evidence deduced by the Complainant is true and proceeds to determine this dispute on the basis of this evidence. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits:
1. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. In particular, it relies upon the registered trademark ZANUSSI and the fact that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the trademark is the addition of the generic word “services”.
2. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. To the contrary, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s advertising on its website incorrectly suggests that there is an official or authorised link between the Respondent and the Complainant.
3. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used bad faith, as the Complainant’s trademarks significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name, and the Respondent has disregarded the Complainant’s cease and desist letters. The disputed domain name resolves to the Respondent’s website where there is a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
For the reasons set out above, the Panel has found that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ZANUSSI.
The disputed domain name consists of the trademark ZANUSSI together with the generic or descriptive word “services” with the addition of the gTLD “.com”. Therefore, in the Panel’s view, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The extracts from the Respondent’s website set out at Annex 10 to the Complaint show that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website where it offers repair services. The website is in Arabic but can be translated to “maintenance services of Zanussi Center for maintenance”.
On the website, the Respondent has included a stylised logo using the term “Zanussi” in colour and which appears prominently on the top right and at the bottom of the website. This clearly suggests a connection with the Complainant. Moreover, the suggested connection with the Complainant is elaborated by the fact that the Respondent has adopted the Complainant’s black and yellow colour scheme and Italian flag.
The Complainant submits that there can be no objection to the Respondent advertising on its website that it offers repairs for Zanussi products. However, the way in which the word Zanussi is used incorrectly suggests that there is an official or authorised link with the Complainant. In summary, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name creates an overall impression that they are passing themselves off as the Complainant.
In the absence of any evidence by way of explanation from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the evidence and the submissions of the Complainant and finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant stresses that the Complainant’s trademarks predate significantly the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, the significant business presence of the Complainant in the Middle Eastern market in the last years is evidence that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s rights.
On June 30, 2015, the Complainant first tried to contact the Respondent by sending a cease and desist letter. The letter advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of the trademark ZANUSSI as part of the disputed domain name violated the Complainant’s rights in the mark and requested a voluntary transfer of the mark.
No response was received from the Respondent and a reminder was sent on July 21, 2015, which also was not responded to.
The Complainant also relies upon the fact that the disputed domain name resolves to a website using the Complainant’s marks and therefore suggest a false representation as to an association or affiliation with the Complainant. The Complainant’s evidence is that the Respondent has never been granted permission to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion.
In the absence of any evidence from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the force of these submissions and finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent 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.
Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy