The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Silka Law AB, Stockholm, Sweden.
The Respondent is Liqimin of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with eName Technology Co., Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 7, 2016. On June 7, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 8, 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.
On June 8, 2016, the Center sent an email communication to the parties in both Chinese and English regarding the language of the proceeding. On the same day, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in both Chinese and English, and the proceedings commenced on June 22, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 12, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 13, 2016.
The Center appointed Kar Liang Soh as the sole panelist in this matter on July 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 Complainant is a Swedish company founded in 1901. It is now a leading producer of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products among other things. In 2014, the Complainant was associated with sales of about SEK 112 billion and about 60,000 employees.
The Complainant uses the trademark ELECTROLUX (the "ELECTROLUX Mark") as its flagship brand for their appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products. The ELECTROLUX Mark has been held to be widely-known by the UDRP panel of Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager,WIPO Case No. D2008-0823. The Complainant has in place agreements with its licensees and distributors which prohibit the registration of domain names incorporating the ELECTROLUX Mark.
The Complainant's trademark registrations incorporating the ELECTROLUX Mark cover over 150 countries including:
Jurisdiction
Trademark Number
Registration Date
International
836605
March 17, 2004
China
11314983
January 7, 2014
International registration no. 836605 designates China, among other jurisdictions. It is a composite of the ELECTROLUX Mark and a logo (the "ELECTROLUX Logo"):
The Complainant is also the holder of multiple domain names incorporating the ELECTROLUX Mark, including and both of which were registered in the 1990's, and operates websites under these domain names.
Very little information about the Respondent is available beyond the WhoIs information of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent appears to be an individual in Beijing, China.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on December 2, 2012. As of June 2, 2016, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a webpage in Chinese which featured the ELECTROLUX Logo and the ELECTROLUX Mark together prominently (in the manner as represented in International registration no. 836605) at the top left corner. The webpage advertises repair services for products under the ELECTROLUX Mark. One of the top menu items on the webpage purports to provide information on fees.
The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on March 31, 2016, including a request for transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. A reminder was sent on April 20, 2016. The Complainant did not receive a response to that letter. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX Mark. It incorporates the ELECTROLUX Mark with the addition of the letters "cn" which refers to China;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The prominent use of the ELECTROLUX Mark and ELECTROLUX Logo on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name strongly suggests a connection to the Complainant. The Complainant has never granted permission to register the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name and the website constituted a false and misleading impression that the Respondent was authorized, licensed or approved to provide information about the Complainant or the Complainant's products. The Respondent was aware of the ELECTROLUX Mark prior to acquiring the Disputed Domain Name and establishing the website; and
(c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent is taking advantage of the ELECTROLUX Mark by intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ELECTROLUX Mark as to its source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. The website does not disclaim any relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent has disregarded the Complainant's cease-and-desist letter. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of Proceeding
As the registration agreement was in Chinese, the default language of the proceeding is also Chinese. The Complainant has requested instead that English should be the language of the proceeding. Having considered the reasons provided and the circumstances of the case, the Panel hereby adopts English as the language of the proceeding. In making this decision, the Panel has taken into account the following factors:
(a) The Complaint has already been submitted in English;
(b) The Respondent having been notified of the Complaint in both Chinese and English did not file a Response and did not object to the Complainant's request for the language of the proceeding to be English; and
(c) No benefit to the efficacy of the proceeding may be achieve by requiring Chinese be maintained as the language of the proceeding. Instead, there will likely be unnecessary delay to the proceeding if so maintained. 6.2 Discussion
To succeed in this proceeding, the Complainant must establish the following limbs of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy:
(a) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights;
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name; and
(c) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
In view of the trademark registrations for the ELECTROLUX Mark, the Complainant has shown that it has rights in the same. It is undisputable that the Disputed Domain Name adopts the ELECTROLUX Mark in its entirety. The Panel finds that the addition of the letters "cn" is an obvious reference to the country code for China and is ineffective to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the ELECTROLUX Mark. It is the consensus opinion of past UDRP panels established under the Policy that the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" plays little part in the comparison between a domain name and a trademark in the context of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the circumstances, the Panel holds that the first limb of paragraph 4(a) is established on the facts. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that the Respondent is known by any name other than "liqimin", let alone the Disputed Domain Name. The evidence shows that the Complainant has essentially asserted the absence of a relationship with the Respondent and any authorization, licence or approval of the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent's use of the ELECTROLUX Mark. The prominent use of the ELECTROLUX Logo and ELECTROLUX Mark on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name in the absence of such relationship conflicts with any uncorroborated assumption of bona fide use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant has clearly established a prima facie case for the second limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. In the absence of a Response, the prima facie case is upheld, and the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The prominent use of the ELECTROLUX Mark and ELECTROLUX Logo on the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name leaves no room for the Respondent to deny any knowledge of the Complainant's rights and interests. The Complainant has allayed very strong allegations against the Respondent which deserves a response from any reasonable person in the Respondent's shoes. The failure of the Respondent to respond to the cease-and-desist letter and this proceeding is very telling, suggesting that the Respondent has no answer to the Complaint.
The Panel draws an adverse inference that the Respondent is unable to controvert the factual allegations of the Complainant, in particular, that the Respondent is taking advantage of the ELECTROLUX Mark by intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the website resolved from the Disputed Domain Name by creating a likelihood of confusion with the ELECTROLUX Mark as to its source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement. The offering of repair services for products under the ELECTROLUX Mark in association with fee information indicates that such offering is intended to attract Internet users for commercial gain.
The Panel is of the view that the circumstances of the present case fall squarely within the situation of bad faith registration and use envisaged by paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, which states:
"by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location."
Therefore, the Panel holds that the third limb of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is also made out. 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.
Kar Liang Soh
Sole Panelist
Date: August 4, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy