The Complainant is LEGO Juris A/S of Billund, Denmark, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Hulmiho Ukolen, Poste restante of Helsinki, Finland / Domain Admin, Whois protection, this company does not own this domain name s.r.o. of Prague, Czech Republic. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Hebei Guoji Maoyi (Shanghai) LTD aka HEBEI INTERNATIONAL TRADING (SHANGHAI) CO., LTD dba HebeiD (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 9, 2016. On May 9, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 12, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 18, 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 amended Complaint on May 19, 2016.
On May 18, 2016, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Finnish and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On May 19, 2016, the Complainant requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.
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 May 25, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 14, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 15, 2016.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 24, 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 the owner of the trademark LEGO, registered for example as a European Union Trademark No. 39800 on October 5, 1998. The disputed domain names were registered on July 7, 2015 and August 9, 2015, respectively.
The websites at the disputed domain names resolve to webpages with sponsored links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has been unable to locate the registration agreement, but submits that the language of the proceedings should be English, because the websites connected to the disputed domain names are in English and the Respondent is hence capable of communicating in English.
The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark LEGO. The disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's trademark in its entirety combined with the generic terms "stars" and "starwarsgames".
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. There is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent that could give rise to any permission by which the Respondent could use the disputed domain names. The Respondent is neither using the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant's trademark is well-known all over the world and it is obvious that the fame of the trademark has motivated the Respondent to register the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying sponsored links to other game offerings. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element a complainant must prove is that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The third element a complainant must establish is that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Language of the Proceeding
The language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, unless both parties agree otherwise, or the panel determines otherwise under paragraph 11 of the Rules. In this case, the language of the registration agreement is in Finnish as confirmed by the Registrar. The Complainant has contacted the Respondent in English and the Respondent has not replied. The websites to which the disputed domain names resolve are in English.
The Respondent has not rebutted these statements and has not objected for English to be the language of the proceeding. Accordingly, in view of the circumstances of this case, the Panel determines that the language of the proceeding shall be English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to this trademark.
The Complainant has shown that it owns rights to the registered trademark LEGO as indicated above. The disputed domain names include the Complainant's respective trademarks in their entirety and combine them with the generic terms "stars" or "starwarsgames".
In accordance with paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0"), noting that each disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's trademark along with descriptive words, the Panel finds that each disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain names.
The consensus view among UDRP panels is that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and paragraph 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.
The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has it been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to use the Complainant's trademark in a domain name or otherwise. The Respondent has not rebutted these arguments.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. In light of the Panel's findings below, the Panel finds there are no other circumstances which provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that each disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the 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 has 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 or 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 Panel considers that the Complainant's trademark LEGO is well-known in many jurisdictions and hence it is inconceivable that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant's trademark when it registered the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names resolve to websites displaying so called sponsored links. When an Internet user clicks such links, the Respondent, or someone else, will be paid for it.
The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain. Based on this, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy has been fulfilled. 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.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 4, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy