The Complainant is Fabege Fastigheter Sverige AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Nordisk Media Utveckling AB, Sweden.
The Respondents are P D S of Sweden and Tony Lennartsson of Kista, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on January 27, 2016. On January 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 31, 2016, the Complainant submitted an amended Complaint. On February 3, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center verified that the Complaint and 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on February 9, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 29, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents' default on March 2, 2016.
The Center appointed Anders Janson as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 2016. 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 part of the Fabege company group in Sweden. Fabege is a leading property company with focus on the development and management of proprietary properties in the Stockholm region. Fabege owns 80 commercial properties, mainly for use as offices but also for retail and other purposes. Fabege operates their main webpage at "".
The Complainant is the holder of the Swedish trademark FABEGE (No. 165264), registered as a word mark on October 27, 1978 in the classes 19, 36, 37 and 42.
The Disputed Domain Name was originally registered on July 15, 1996. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Disputed Domain Name is identical to the trademark FABEGE, disregarding the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".
The Respondents have never been licensed or in any other way authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark FABEGE in any way. The Respondents have been using the Disputed Domain Name for monetary gain by misleading consumers. The website at the Disputed Domain Name has shown a landing page with what appears to be pay-per-click advertisement within the scope of the FABEGE trademark registration. The main content of the web page was removed after correspondence with the Complainant's representatives and the Registrar.
The Respondents have engaged a pattern of conduct when it comes to registering domain names with the purpose of preventing the owner of a trademark from registering the corresponding domain name and have a history of cybersquatting. The Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name has been listed at the website of the Swedish company "Control Alt Delete" with several other domain names based on famous trademarks. "Control Alt Delete" has been in the business of registering trademarks as domain names with the purpose of selling them to the trademark holder. There is evidence of connection between the Respondents and "Control Alt Delete" and this shows a pattern of conduct when it comes to registering domain names with the purpose of preventing the owner of a trademark from registering the corresponding domain name. The FABEGE trademark is distinctive and the Disputed Domain Name was registered 18 years after the trademark was registered. The Respondents must have been aware of the FABEGE trademark at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondents have used incorrect address information in the registration information for the Disputed Domain Name, which supports the finding of bad faith.
The Respondents have intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark. The Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Given the Complaint and evidence submitted by the Complainant and the Respondents' failure to file a Response, the Panel accepts as true the reasonable contentions of the Complainant. The Respondents' default does not however automatically lead to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. On the contrary, the Complainant still must establish that it is entitled to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name under the Policy.
According to Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The Disputed Domain Name is 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 Name; and
(iii) The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant does have trademark rights to FABEGE with reference to the trademark registration submitted by the Complainant.
The Disputed Domain Name is and therefore contains the Complainant's trademark FABEGE in its entirety with the added generic and functional gTLD ".com". As established in many previous UDRP decisions the later should be disregarded and the Disputed Domain Name is therefore identical to the Complainant's registered trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In this case, the Complainant has submitted convincing argumentation and enough evidence of its exclusive right concerning the FABEGE trademark. The Complainant has asserted that no permission has been granted to the Respondents to register the Disputed Domain Name. Further, the Complainant has stated that, the Disputed Domain Name has been used for commercial gain and that the Respondents are fraudulently using the Disputed Domain Name website to redirect visitors to competitors' website in order to gain commercial benefit. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondents lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.
Therefore, the burden of production shifts to the Respondents to bring forward appropriate allegations or evidence of its rights or legitimate interests. The Respondents have not replied to the Complainant's contentions. The failure to file a Response leaves the Panel to decide the case on the basis of the available record and the evidence provided by the Complainant. Upon consideration of the available record, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the Complainant's trademark is well-known at least in the property sector and that it is therefore highly unlikely that the Respondents were unaware of the Complainant's trademark. Further, the Complainant has stated that the Respondents have a pattern of conduct when it comes to registering domain names with the purpose of preventing the owner of a trademark from registering the corresponding domain name. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith. The Respondent have used the website to a landing page redirecting visitors to a competitor's website in order to gain commercial benefit. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates and is identical to the Complainant's trademark and the Respondents own no trademark or other rights in the FABEGE mark. This constitutes evidence of registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. There is no material in the record which challenges this conclusion.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has fulfilled the requirements under 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Anders Janson
Sole Panelist
Date: March 23, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy