The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by BrandIT Legal AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Whois Agent, Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. of Washington, United States of America/ gümüs servis (gümü? servis) of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered Domainsite, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 8, 2016. On February 8, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 8, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 12, 2016 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on February 12, 2016.
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 18, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2016.
The Center appointed Gökhan Gökçe as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 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, AB Electrolux, is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning. The Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark AEG in several classes in many countries, including Turkey. A list of these trademark registrations was attached to the Complaint.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 8, 2012.
The Panel visited the disputed domain name on April 12, 2016, and observed that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a Turkish language website offering repair services for the Complainant’s AEG products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
In accordance with the Policy, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. The Complainant submits the grounds for these proceedings listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name comprises the term “aeg” which is identical to its registered trademark AEG. The Complainant states that the fame of AEG has been confirmed in previous UDRP decisions and asserts that the addition of the generic Turkish words “servisi”, which means “service” in English and the addition of a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, do not have an impact on the overall impression of the dominant part of the disputed domain name and does not exclude the confusing similarity.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names that correspond to the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent a licensee of the Complainant. The Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register its trademark as a domain name. Further, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not an authorized dealer of its products, and has no business relationship with it, a factor that establishes an absence of a right or legitimate interest on the part of the Respondent.
The Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is connected to a website offering repair services for AEG products.
In this regard, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s website does not meet the criteria laid down in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent does not adequately disclose the non-existence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, nor are there any visible disclaimers that the relevant website is not endorsed or sponsored by the Complainant.
Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the trademark AEG has the status of reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering services for AEG products, and that the Respondent is thus using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As the Respondent has not filed a Response, the Panel may decide the dispute based on the Complaint and may accept all reasonable factual allegations as true. The Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the following three elements must be proven by the Complainant, to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Policy requires the Complainant to demonstrate that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark AEG as evidenced in the annexes to the Complaint.
The Panel is of the opinion that the addition of the Turkish word “servisi” does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name. “On the contrary, the nature of the generic terms used would tend to reinforce consumers’ erroneous conclusion that the websites to which the disputed domain name resolves are somehow legitimately included in the supply and service system established by the Complainant”, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Ibrahim Yurtcu, WIPO Case No. D2013-0796.
The Panel further finds that the addition of gTLDs such as “.com” may generally be disregarded when determining whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, PRL USA Holdings, Inc. v. Spiral Matrix,WIPO Case No. D2006-0189. It has been stated in several decisions by other UDRP panels that the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name may often be sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark, Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, Sauber Motorsport AG v. Petaluma Auto Works,WIPO Case No. D2005-0941. The Panel recognizes the Complainant’s trademark rights and concludes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with the Complainant’s AEG trademark.
The Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are fulfilled. Consequently, the Panel finds for the Complainant on the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is established in numerous UDRP decisions that it is difficult for a complainant to prove a negative and for that reason the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o,WIPO Case No. D2004-0110. Once the complainant makes a prima facie case, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name shifts to the respondent. The Policy, paragraph 4(c) provides various ways in which the respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has any rights in any trademarks or service marks which are identical, similar or related to the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights.
Pursuant to Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., supra, in order for a reseller (or servicer) to be regarded as having a legitimate interest in registering a domain name which incorporates the complainant’s trademark, (i) the respondent should actually be offering the complainant’s goods or services via the website attached to the disputed domain name, (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods, (iii) the site must accurately disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner and (iv) the respondent should not try to corner the market in domain name which incorporates the complainant’s trademark.
In this case, the disputed domain name resolves to a website in Turkish that offer services for AEG products and contain the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent provides private repair services for the AEG brands, when evaluated together with the trademarks and expressions such as “AEG Servisi” (“AEG Services”), the Respondent clearly suggests a business relationship with the Complainant where none exists and the website provides no disclaimer of the lack of such a relationship. Such use cannot be said to be a bona fide offering of services under the Policy.
The website associated with the disputed domain name is a commercial website used for the promotion of technical services offered by the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel infers that there is no intention of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain or to misleadingly divert consumers.
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent did not submit a response. In light of the above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are fulfilled and, consequently, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Finally, the Complainant must show that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that, if found by a panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
The Complainant’s trademark AEG was registered and used before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark AEG in the field of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning is clearly established. Further, the Respondent’s website associated with the disputed domain name contains the AEG trademarks. Therefore, the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark AEG at the time the disputed domain name was registered. The Panel, in accordance with previous decisions issued under the Policy, is of the opinion that here, the actual knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name is to be considered as an inference of bad faith, Parfums Christian Dior v. Javier Garcia Quintas and C,WIPO Case No. D2000-0226.
Further, the fact that the Respondent’s website uses the Complainant’s trademark AEG in connection with offering services related to the Complainant’s goods suggests that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website and other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.
After examining all circumstances surrounding the registration and use of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds in favor of the Complainant on the third element 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.
Gökhan Gökçe
Sole Panelist
Date: April 13, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy