The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is BTS of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 30, 2016. On May 30, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 31, 2016, 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 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 June 7, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 27, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 28, 2016.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 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 a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world's leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant has registered trademarks all over the world, including in Turkey, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has business presence in Turkey through its business unit in Istanbul as well as via its official licensing partners and service desks.
The Domain Name was registered on December 25, 2007. 5. Parties' Contentions A. The Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant's well-known registered trademark ELECTROLUX. The Domain Name also contains the generic and descriptive Turkish word "servis" (which can be translated to "service" in English). The addition of generic terms does not differentiate the Domain Name from the registered trademark. Further, the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".net" does not add any distinctiveness to the Domain Name.
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name and there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its website where it offers repair and maintenance services, as well as claiming to sell original spare parts for Electrolux products. However, the Respondent does not publish a disclaimer on the website, the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of the opportunity to reflect its own mark (the protected mark of Electrolux) in the Domain Name, and the Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using the Complainant's official ELECTROLUX trademark and logo on its website. Therefore, the Respondent does not meet the Oki Data criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). The Complainant finds it undeniable that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's marks prior to the acquisition of the Domain Name and the establishment of the Respondent's website. Further, the Respondent has made no claims to having any relevant prior rights of its own.
The Complainant's trademark registrations predate the registration of the Domain Name. The Complainant therefore argues that it seems unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the trademark and the unlawfulness of the registration of the Domain Name. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to respond to any communication attempts made by the Complainant, which should also be considered an indication of a bad faith registration. B. The Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
The test for confusingly similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name merely combines the word "servis" (which can be translated to "service" in English) and the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX. For the purposes of assessing identity and confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain ".net".
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX mark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Name. Neither is there any evidence suggesting that the Respondent has been using ELECTROLUX in a way that would give it rights or legitimate interests in the name.
It is true that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its website where it offers repair and maintenance services and claims to sell original spare parts. However, the Respondent does not meet the Oki Data criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903), which may have granted it a legitimate interest. For example, there seems to be no disclaimer on the website and the Respondent presents itself under the Complainant's official ELECTROLUX trademark and logo on the website.
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, see Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii), Rules, paragraph 3(b)(ix)(2). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel is convinced that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant's trademark registrations predate the registration of the Domain Name.
The Panel also finds use of the Domain Name in bad faith. The Domain Name has been used to try to attract Internet users for commercial gain by misleading them into believing that the website at the Domain Name is authorized by or somehow connected to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's cease and desist letter, nor the Complaint.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii), Rules, paragraphs 3(b)(viii), (b)(ix)(3). 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 14, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy