The Complainant is Edgewell Personal Care Brands, LLC of Shelton, Connecticut, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Thompson Coburn LLP, United States.
The Respondent is Zhuashuai of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed 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 July 26, 2016. On July 27, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 28, 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. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an Amended Complaint on July 28, 2016.
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 August 8, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 28, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 29, 2016.
The Center appointed Adam Samuel as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 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 provides personal care products, including razors, razor blades, and shaving preparations. The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in a variety of countries for WILKINSON SWORD, including United States trademark No. 0613015 which was filed on April 20, 1954 and registered on September 27, 1955. The Complainant uses a number of domain names incorporating its WILKINSON SWORD trademark including . The disputed domain name was registered on June 3, 2016 and resolves to a pay-per-click website displaying links to the Complainant’s competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
These are the Complainant’s contentions. The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the name “Wilkinson Sword” (“the Complainant’s trademark”) in a number of countries, going back to the 1950s. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark except for the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.xyz”. It is at the very least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The disputed domain name exists entirely for the purposes of operating a pay-per-click website that directs Internet users to websites of the Complainant’s competitors. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and has never been affiliated with or connected to the Complainant. The dispute domain name operates merely as a conduit to third party offers of goods and the Respondent is taking unfair advantage of the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s trademark to offer goods of third parties.
The registration of a domain name that uses a trademark as its dominant portion with knowledge of a third party’s rights in the mark and no license to use such a mark, constitutes bad faith registration. The Respondent knew of, or was willfully blind to the Complainant’s rights in its trademark. Even a simple search engine query would have revealed the existence of those rights.
The disputed domain name is being auctioned to the highest bidder on the Sedo marketplace website. This is evidence of bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark WILKINSON SWORD, a name consisting of a well-known English surname and the word “sword” and the gTLD “.xyz”. The disputed domain name is at the very least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent is not called “Wilkinson Sword” or anything similar. There is no evidence that the Complainant has ever authorized the Respondent to use its trademark. For these reasons, and in the absence of any response on this point, notably one contradicting the Complainant’s claim that the Respondent has never been connected to it in any way, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark which consists of a family name and a military weapon with which the name is unconnected except through the widespread use of the Complainant’s trademark and the gTLD “.xyz”. In the circumstances, there appears to have been no reason for the Respondent to register the disputed domain name except to reflect the Complainant’s trademark.
Without a substantive response to the Complaint, it is impossible to know exactly why the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. In this Panel’s view, one is left with three possible motives for the Respondent’s decision to register and use the disputed domain name: to disrupt the Complainant’s relationship with their customers or potential customers, attempt to attract Internet users for potential gain or persuade the Complainant to buy the disputed domain name from it for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses. These all constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Respondent’s motivation may have been more than one of these and perhaps all three. The evidence that the disputed domain name was for sale for the highest bidder shortly after its registration provides further support for the third point.
For all these reasons, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the purposes 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.
Adam Samuel
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2016
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy