The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, (the "Complainant") represented by BrandIT Legal AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. of Kirkland, Washington, United States of America / Mostafa Faheem or Mostafa Elsaid of Giza, Egypt/ (the "Respondent") unrepresented. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , , , , , , , , , , , and (the "Disputed Domain Names") are registered with N, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on October 16, 2015. On October 16, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On the same date, 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 together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 21, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 10, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 11, 2015.
The Center appointed Ike Ehiribe as the sole panelist in this matter on November 20, 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 in this administrative proceeding is AB Electrolux and has its registered business address in Sweden. The Complainant, a joint stock company is said to have been established in 1901. The Complainant is said to be one of the world's leading producers of home appliances, kitchen equipment and cleaning products and acquired the Italian appliance manufacturer Zanussi in 1984. The trademark ZANUSSI was registered on March 6, 2014. The ZANUSSI brand was founded in 1916 and is said to stand for the Italian innovation for flair. The Complainant describes the Zanussi branded products as one of its strategic brands and is said to have devoted substantial resources to advertising and promoting its trademark ZANUSSI. The Complainant is also described as a market leader in white goods and floor care products in Europe and the Middle East. In 2011, the Complainant acquired Egypt's leading appliance manufacturer, the Olympic Group, thereby expanding its presence further in Egypt and other parts of the Middle East. In 2014 the Complainant is recorded to have had sales of SEK 112 billion and approximately 60,000 employees.
The Respondent according to the WhoIs database and as confirmed by the Registrar is Mostafa Faheem or Mostafa Elsaid with an address in Egypt. The Panel treats both Mostafa Faheem and Mostafa Elsaid as one and the same, having identical postal addresses and identical admin and technical contacts. The Respondent created the sixteen Disputed Domain Names according to the WhoIs reports attached to the Complaint on diverse dates between November 21, 2013 and October 16, 2015. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it has registered a number of domain names with generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLDs") and country-code Top-Level Domains ("ccTLDs") containing the trademark ZANUSSI, for instance created on November 17, 2005 and created on December 16, 2002. These domain names are said to be used by the Complainant to connect to its website through which it informs potential customers about its products and services. The Complainant also owns several trademarks for the ZANUSSI brand as evidenced by a number of trademark registration certificates attached to the Complaint. The Complainant asserts that the ZANUSSI mark enjoys a high degree of renown around the world including Egypt as a result of extensive use and advertising.
The Complainant is also the owner of the KELVINATOR trademark and exercises such rights over the trademark through its wholly owned subsidiary Electrolux Home Products Inc. The KELVINATOR trademark is said to be synonymous with quality and performance.
The Complainant therefore contends that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known registered ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks in that the Disputed Domain Names wholly incorporate the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks. In this regard, it is contended that the mere addition of the generic words "maintenance", "alabd", "ideal", the country name "Italy", the common country abbreviation "eg" for Egypt nor the Top-Level suffixes, ".co" , ".com", ".net", ".biz", ".company" and ".website" does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Names such as to preclude a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant relies in support for this contention, on a recent UDRP case International Business Machines Corporation v. Sledge, Inc. / Frank Sledge WIPO Case No. D2014-0581 and paragraph 1.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), which in the main suggests that in undertaking the confusing similarity test, the addition of the Top-Level suffix such as ".com" is normally disregarded.
The Complainant states therefore that the Respondent is merely using the Disputed Domain Names to attract Internet users to its website where it offers repair and maintenance services. Thereby, giving Internet users the false impression that the Respondent has an authorized connection with the Complainant. In support of this submission the Complainant makes the following points. Firstly, with respect to the Disputed Domain Names , , , , , , , , , , , and , apart from displaying the Complainant's trademarks prominently on some of the websites to which some of the Disputed Domain Names revolve to, which as displayed includes a stylized ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR logo, the Complainant's black and yellow colour scheme and Italian flag, the Respondent has failed to place a disclaimer explaining the non-existing relationship with the Complainant. In this regard the Complainant contends that while the Respondent may be allowed to advertise that it offers repair services on its websites, the prominent use of the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks strongly suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant. The Complainant further refers to the Oki Data Criteriastipulated in the decision in Oki Data Americas Inc. v. ASD Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 to assert that the Respondent as a third party cannot be described as using the Complainant's trademarks as a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy where the Respondent: (i) fails to publish a disclaimer on its website; (ii) continues to deprive the Complainant of the opportunity of reflecting its own trademark in the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) presents itself as the owner of the Complainant's trademarks by adopting websites that look official by using the Complainant's logo and colour scheme. Secondly, with regards to the Disputed Domain Name which resolves to a website containing pay-per-click links related to the Complainant's trademarks, it is submitted that such conduct does not provide a legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name as held in Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Ltd. / Mr. Cartwright,WIPO Case No. D2007-0267. Thirdly, with regards to the Disputed Domain Names and which resolve to inactive websites, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent cannot be said to have any legitimate interests in those Disputed Domain Names as the Respondent has made no claims to having any relevant prior rights of its own or to having become known by the Disputed Domain Names or to have made legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent's identity is hidden by a WhoIs privacy protection service as shown in the WhoIs record.
On the question of registration in bad faith and bad faith use, the Complainant submits as follows. First of all, it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's pre-existing rights in the ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks before proceeding to register the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has been active in the Middle East market and the Complainant's trademarks significantly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. Secondly, the Complainant alludes to the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complainant's cease and desist letters dated June 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015 as evidence of bad faith use of the Disputed Domain Names following Nike Inc., v. Azumano Travel,WIPO Case No. D2000-1598 and other decisions cited by the Complainant. Thirdly, the Respondent takes advantage of the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks by intentionally attempting to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website in circumstances similar to those that arose in a recent UDRP decision in Aktiebolaget Electolux v. E, Domain Discreet Privacy Service/Luis Rincon,WIPO Case No. D2014-0487. Fourthly, the Respondent intentionally chose the Disputed Domain Names based on registered and well-known trademarks of the Complainant in order to generate more traffic to its own business, considering that the Respondent did not disclaim on its website the non-existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant and considering further that the Disputed Domain Names resolve to repair center websites and/or, pay-per-click and,/or inactive websites owned by the Respondent. In this regard the Complainant concludes further that the Respondent is intentionally using the Disputed Domain Names to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ZANUSSI trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement contrary to the decision in Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946 where the panel described such conduct as evidence of bad faith registration and bad faith use. Fifthly, it is argued that the Respondent has established a pattern of conduct which consists of the repeated registration of multiple domain names similar to established trademarks in that not only has the Respondent registered at least sixteen domain names incorporating the Complainant's trademarks, the Respondent has also created other domain names incorporating trademarks such as SIEMENS, WHITEWESTINGHOUSE, etc. In addition, the Respondent has created numerous domain names under the ".uk" ccTLD incorporating the Complainant's trademark for instance , , , and . B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant must prove each of the three elements in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed namely that:
i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a 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 Names; and
iii) the Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Names and is using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This Panel is wholly satisfied that the Complainant has established long standing and world-wide rights in the ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks, including in Egypt where the Respondent is said to be domiciled, as evidenced by the numerous trademark registrations submitted by the Complainant. The Panel also takes into account the numerous previous UDRP decisions as listed in the Complaint where the Complainant has successfully challenged other domain names comprising the trademarks ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR. Accordingly, the Panel finds without any hesitation that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar or identical to the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks. Furthermore, as the Complainant correctly contends, the mere addition of generic words such as "maintenance", "ideal", "alabd" or country names such as "Italy" or the common country abbreviation such as "eg" for Egypt and or the Top-Level suffixes such as ".co", ".com", ".net", ".biz", ".company" and ".website" does nothing to preclude a finding of confusing similarity. See in this regard, the following cases namely, SouthCrest Bank N.A. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd,WIPO Case No. DCO2015-0009 and International Business Machines Corporation v. Sledge, Inc. / Frank Sledge, supra, where the panel held that when comparing a trademark and a disputed domain name, the gTLD suffix such as ".com" and the ccTLD such as ".co" are usually disregarded. See also WIPO Overview 2.0, paragraph 1.2 in this respect. In the circumstance the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
With particular reference to the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names, as submitted by the Complainant, the Panel finds as a fact that there is nothing in the conduct of the Respondent that remotely indicates or otherwise suggests that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in any of the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel in this regard finds that the Respondent was not and has not been known commonly by any of the Disputed Domain Names. In addition, the Panel finds that there is nothing to suggest from the Respondent's use of the websites to which the Disputed Domain Names resolve, that they were used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its marks and, the Complainant has indicated that it has clear agreements with all of its authorized partners that they may not register a domain name containing its trademarks. The fact that the Respondent's identity was hidden by a WhoIs privacy protection service may also be a relevant factor in considering whether or not the Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. More significantly, the Panel finds that there is ample evidence to suggest that the Respondent is attracting Internet users to its website where repair services for the maintenance of Zanussi products is offered thereby giving Internet users the erroneous impression that the Respondent has an authorized connection with the Complainant. This finding is strengthened by the fact that the Respondent chooses to display prominently the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks, the Complainant's chosen colour scheme and the Italian flag on its website.
Furthermore, the Panel finds that the Respondent is clearly attempting to mislead Internet users by creating the false impression that it is authorized to use or has an official link to the Complainant's well-known ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks. As the Complainant correctly submits, the Respondent has failed to publish a disclaimer on the websites to which thirteen of the Disputed Domain Names resolve, the Respondent is thereby preventing the Complainant from reflecting its trademarks in the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent continues to present itself as the trademark owner by adopting websites that look official by using the Complainant's logo and colour scheme. As one of the Disputed Domain Names, i.e., , resolves to a website populated with pay-per-click links related to the Complainant's trademarks, such activity cannot be described as indicative of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. See in this regard Express Scripts, Inc. v. Windgather Investments Limited / Mr. Cartwright, supra. Equally, as two of the Disputed Domain Names resolve to inactive websites, such conduct cannot be described as a legitimate noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Names within the ambit of the Policy under these facts. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names. In the first instance, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the Complainant's prior rights in the ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks before embarking on a spree of registering multiple domain names as from November 2013. Apart from other trademark registrations owned by the Complainant, the Complainant had effectively registered its ZANUSSI trademark in Egypt where the Respondent is said to be domiciled as far back as 1973. Secondly, the evidence reveals that the Respondent has repeatedly taken advantage of the Complainant's ZANUSSI and KELVINATOR trademarks in the Domain Names and in the Respondent's websites to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's websites. As held in recent UDRP decisions, involving similar circumstances namely Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Muneer Mohamed of Cairo,WIPO Case No.D2015-0874 and Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. , Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Luis Rincon, supra such conduct of deliberately misleading and diverting Internet users is undoubtedly evidence of bad faith registration and continued bad faith use. Thirdly, the Respondent has taken active steps to hide its identity behind a privacy shield. Fourthly, the Panel takes into account the fact that the Respondent has over the years established a pattern of conduct consisting in the registration of multiple domain names similar to well established trademarks such as SIEMENS, WHITEWESTINGHOUSE, etc. Fifthly, the Panel draws negative inferences from the failure or refusal of the Respondent to file a response to this Complaint, in addition to the failure to respond to the cease and desist letters dispatched to the Respondent. Lastly, the passive holding of two of the Domain Names, under the present facts, cannot avoid a finding of bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the specified requirements of 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 Names , , , , , , , , , , , , , , and be transferred to the Complainant forthwith.
Ike Ehiribe
Sole Panelist
Date: December 17, 2015
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy