The Complainant is General Electric Company of Fairfield, Connecticut, United States of America, represented by Saba & Co. IP, Lebanon.
The Respondents are Islam Gamal and Begad Negad of Cairo, Egypt. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with N LLC. The disputed domain name is registered with D, LLC (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 21, 2016 involving, in addition to the disputed domain names, the domain name . On March 21, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 21, 2016 and March 22, 2016, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming that the Respondents are listed as the registrants 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 31, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 20, 2016.
On April 14, 2016 the Complainant submitted a request for suspension to the Center. On the same date the Center notified the Parties that the proceedings were suspended and provided the Parties with a standard settlement form. On April 18, 2016 the Center received a settlement form signed by both Parties regarding the domain name . On April 19, 2016 the Center notified the concerned Registrar that the Parties had reached an agreement regarding this domain name. On April 22, 2016 the Complainant confirmed to the Center that the settlement had been implemented by the concerned Registrar.
On April 26, 2016 the Center notified the Parties that the proceedings were dismissed without prejudice with regard to the domain name and that the proceedings (pertaining to the disputed domain names , and ) were reinstituted as of April 26, 2016. The Center informed the Parties that the new Response due date was May 2, 2016. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on May 3, 2016.
The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on May 19, 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 trademarks GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE are world famous trademarks owned by the Complainant. Their origins go as far back as the 19th century. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for both its trademarks GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE in many countries in the world including Egypt where the Respondents seem to reside. Some of the registrations in Egypt date back to the 1940’s.
The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondents in 2014 and 2015 and resolve to websites which offer repair and maintenance services of home appliances. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks as they include the trademarks GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE in their entirety and that adding geographical indications do not help in eliminating the confusion. In addition, starting the disputed domain names with the trademarks of the Complainant creates an impression of affiliation.
The Complainant contends that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is nothing to show that the Respondents were commonly known by the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are not used for a non-commercial purpose but to promote the Respondents’ repair services of products of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the activity of repairing products of the Complainant alone does not grant the Respondents the right to use the Complainant’s trademarks as they fail to meet their relevant test established by previous UDRP panels. They fail the test mainly by misrepresenting their relationship with the Complainant by creating the false impression that they are affiliated with the Complainant. Consequently, their use of the disputed domain names cannot be considered a bona fide offering of services. Furthermore, the Complainant’s trademarks are so famous and old that no rights in them can be established by a third party.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Respondents have registered and are using the disputed domain names in bad faith for commercial gain and to benefit from the goodwill established in the trademarks of the Complainant. Their aim is to lead Internet users to believe that they are associated with the Complainant. The bad faith of the Respondents is demonstrated by the fact that they actually claim being associated with the Complainant. The bad faith is also demonstrated by the use of the Complainant’s trademarks which are well-known and this use was done years after the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks had been established. The Respondent Begad Negad has previously used other famous trademarks for the same purpose. Furthermore, the Respondents had provided false contact details. It is therefore the Complainant’s contention that the Respondents have registered the disputed domain names and are using them in bad faith. B. Respondents
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As a preliminary matter, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s consolidated Complaint against multiple Respondents is appropriate in the circumstances of this case, and will proceed to a decision as to all three disputed domain names. The Complainant has provided sufficient evidence of common contact information for all three disputed domain names for the Panel to find that they are under common control. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established its rights in the trademarks GENERAL ELECTRIC and GE by submitting trademark registration certificates. The disputed domain names include the trademarks of the Complainant combined with the territorial indications “egypt”, “egy” and “usa”. Adding these terms does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks in anyway whatsoever.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondents have not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In the absence of such response, the Panel believes that the Complainant met the requirement under the Policy showing that the Respondents do not have any rights or legitimate interests. See, Investissement Marius Saradar S.A.L. (Holding Company) and Banque Saradar S.A.L. v. John Naffah and Z Publishing Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0853.
Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant’s trademarks are well-known trademarks and are being used by the Respondents in order to create the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. The websites to which the disputed domain names resolve include misleading information whereby the Respondents represent themselves as being part of the Complainant or being affiliated with the Complainant. Hence, it is clear that the Respondents are using the trademarks of the Complainant and its name in order to attract consumers to their services of repair and maintenance of home appliances. The Respondents have registered the disputed domain names and are using them in bad faith in an attempt to confuse consumers and attract them through capitalizing and free-riding on the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks.
Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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.
Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: May 23, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy