The Complainant is Björn Borg Brands AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by IPQ IP Specialists AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Song Qiuxiang of Henan, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are 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 February 7, 2017. On February 7, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 9, 2017, 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 February 10, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2017.
The Center appointed Carol Anne Been as the sole panelist in this matter on March 17, 2017. 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 alleges that it was established in the first half of the 1990’s and is based in Stockholm, Sweden. The Complainant sells BJÖRN BORG branded merchandise in around 30 markets, including Finland. The Complainant also sells branded merchandise through an online site, “”, nearly worldwide, including China.
The Complainant alleges that it registered the trademark BJÖRN BORG in several classes in multiple jurisdictions, including in China and Finland, and domain names using the trademark BJÖRN BORG, before the disputed domain names were registered.
The disputed domain names were registered September 2, 2016. According to the WhoIs record, the Respondent has an address in China. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are used for commercial websites with online web shops that target international visitors and appear to sell clothing under the BJÖRN BORG trademark. The website at “www.” is in English, and the website at “www.” is partly in Finnish. The websites at the disputed domain names prominently display the trademark BJÖRN BORG and copyrighted images of clothing identified by the trademark BJÖRN BORG.
The Complainant alleges that its test purchases ordering clothing under the BJÖRN BORG trademark from the websites at the disputed domain names resulted in delivery of clothing from other brands such as Boss and Abercrombie & Fitch. The Complainant alleges that it sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on January 25, 2017, requesting a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain names and offering compensation for out of pocket expenses of registration and transfer fees. The Complainant alleges that it did not receive a response to the cease and desist letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BJÖRN BORG trademark, which is registered in several jurisdictions including China and Finland, and domain names, which include . The Complainant notes that the disputed domain names differ from the Complainant’s well-established BJÖRN BORG trademark by the addition of the generic or descriptive words “clothing” and “kengat” (“shoes” in Finnish). The Complainant alleges that the BJÖRN BORG trademark is instantly recognizable despite the addition of these words. The Complainant also alleges that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is non-distinctive.
The Complainant alleges that it has not found any registered trademarks or trade names of the Respondent corresponding to the disputed domain names, or anything that would suggest the Respondent has legitimate rights in the disputed domain names.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are used for online web shops that appear to sell clothing under the BJÖRN BORG trademark. However, the Complainant alleges that it has not given any license or authorization for the Respondent to use the BJÖRN BORG trademark. The Complainant alleges that the clothing delivered in a test purchase ordering clothing under the trademark BJÖRN BORG was in fact clothing with other brands and not BJÖRN BORG.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s legal rights in the BJÖRN BORG trademark at the time the Respondent registered the disputed domain names.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the BJÖRN BORG trademark, and registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant alleges that it owns and has registered trademark rights in the BJÖRN BORG mark in China, Finland and many other jurisdictions. The Complainant alleges that the BJÖRN BORG mark is
well-established. The Complainant alleges that it owned these rights prior to the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BJÖRN BORG mark, despite the addition of the words “clothing” and “kengat” (“shoes” in Finnish) to the disputed domain names, respectively. The Complainant alleges that these words are generic or descriptive of the Complainant’s business selling clothing and shoes, and will not impact the overall impression created by the disputed domain names as the recognizable BJÖRN BORG mark and may in fact strengthen the connection to the BJÖRN BORG mark.
The Complainant cites paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) stating that the addition of a generic or descriptive word does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant cites UDRP decisions holding that a domain name is confusingly similar when it incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark, and that the addition of the gTLD “.com” is non-distinctive and without legal significance when assessing confusing similarity.
The Respondent has not responded to this contention.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant alleges that it did not find any registered trademarks or trade names owned by the Respondent and corresponding to the disputed domain names, nor any other indication that the Respondent has used the term BJÖRN BORG in a way that could give the Respondent legitimate rights. The Complainant alleges that it did not give any license or authorization to the Respondent for use of the BJÖRN BORG mark.
The Complainant cites UDRP decisions to support its allegation of the lack of rights or legitimate interests based on similar facts.
The Respondent has not responded to this contention.
Concerning the lack of response from the respondent, a panel may draw appropriate inferences from a respondent’s default, although a respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the complainant. The complainant must establish each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP. See, e.g., The Vanguard Group, Inc. v. Lorna Kang,WIPO Case No. D2002-1064; paragraph 4.9 of the WIPO Overview 2.0.
In the absence of any response from the Respondent claiming rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the BJÖRN BORG mark is well-established in the fashion area, and is not a term one would randomly choose for a domain name unless planning to create the impression of a connection to the Complainant. The Complainant alleges that the online shops connected to the disputed domain names prominently display the BJÖRN BORG mark and copyrighted images of products bearing the BJÖRN BORG mark, but do not disclose the lack of relationship with the Complainant.
The Complainant alleges, based on its test purchases from the websites connected to the disputed domain names, that the websites promote sales of clothing bearing the BJÖRN BORG mark, but the products delivered in response to orders do not bear the BJÖRN BORG mark.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent is using the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to the websites for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the websites connected to the disputed domain names.
The Respondent has not responded to this contention.
Pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Carol Anne Been
Sole Panelist
Date: March 29, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy