The Complainant is Svea Ekonomi AB of Solna, Sweden, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Nathan Taylor of Stockholm, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with D, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 9, 2017. On February 9, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. 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 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2017.
The Center appointed Petter Rindforth as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 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.
On March 23, 2017, the Panel issued an Administrative Panel Procedural Order No. 1, referring to the fact that the Complainant, among other trademarks, had referred to two Swedish national trademarks, identified by the Complainant with their application number and with Svea Inkasso AB as the owner. The Panel therefore requested the Complainant to further clarify the claim that the Complainant, Svea Ekonomi AB, is the owner of two Swedish national trademark registrations for SVEA INKASSO AB, or otherwise how Svea Inkasso AB is connected to the Complainant.
The Complainant was given until March 31, 2017, to send the said clarifications to the Center, and the due date for the decision was extended to April 7, 2017. The Complainant’s response to the Panel Order was timely received by the Center on March 24, 2017.
The Panel shall issue its Decision based on the Complaint, the response to the Administrative Panel Procedural Order, the Policy, the Rules, the Supplemental Rules, and without the benefit of any Response from the Respondent. The case before the Panel was conducted in the English language. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a Swedish financial and administrative service company, and the owner of the following trademarks:
European Union trademark Registration No. 005050034 SVEA (word), filed on May 2, 2006, and registered on February 5, 2009 for services in class 36, and
Danish national trademark Registration No. VR 2013 00750 SVEA INKASSO (word), filed on March 22, 2013, and registered on April 11, 2013 for services in class 36.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 12, 2017. No detailed information is provided about the Respondent’s activities, apart from what is mentioned below by the Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a Registrar parking page, and was used for phishing emails. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant, formed in 1981, is a liability company incorporated in Sweden and described by the Complainant as a leading actor in northern Europe for financial and administrative services, including factoring, ledger, administration and debt administration. The Complainant is authorized by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority and has offices in eight countries all over the world.
The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark Registration No. 005050034 SVEA (word), and the Danish national trademark Registration No. VR 2013 00750 SVEA INKASSO (word), but also
refer – identifying itself as the owner – to the two Swedish national trademark Registrations No. 243 862 SVEA INKASSO AB (fig), and No. 315 904 SVEA INKASSO AB (fig), registered in the name of Svea Inkasso AB.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks SVEA and SVEA INKASSO.
The Complainant further states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name , as the Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, nor has the Complainant given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark SVEA INKASSO as a domain name. The Respondent is not using in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner.
Finally, the Complainant concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s trademarks were registered well before the Respondent became the owner of the disputed domain name . It is obvious that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and business when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant has been using the SVEA trademark as well as the SVEA INKASSO trademark for over 20 years. The Respondent has also taken illegal actions when sending out texts pretending to be the Complainant. In these texts the Respondent has accused the receivers that they have got a notification to the collection due to unpaid bills. The Complainant has not had any connection or control over these texts whatsoever. By creating these texts, the Respondent has by pretending to be the Complainant, tried to make the receiver of the text to leave out personal information on the website connected to , where the Respondent has also used the Complainant’s registered logo. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, a complainant must prove each of the following:
(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(ii) that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark Registration SVEA (word), and the Danish national trademark Registration SVEA INKASSO (word).
The Complainant has also referred to two Swedish national registrations for SVEA INKASSO AB (fig). However, these two trademarks are registered in the name of another company – Svea Inkasso AB. The Panel has given the Complainant the opportunity to further clarify the connection between the Complainant and the registered owner of the two Swedish registrations, however the Complainant has only replied with the correct registration numbers. Although the Panel has no reason to question if Svea Inkasso AB is in some way related to the Complainant, without the requested clarification the Panel will not consider these two Swedish national trademark registrations as a base for the complaint.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is “svea-inkasso”, as the added generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) – being a required element of every domain name – is generally irrelevant when assessing whether or nota mark is identical or confusingly similar.
Further, the addition of the hyphen makes no difference, as a two word trademark such as SVEA INKASSO for technical reasons has to be registered either as one word or with such hyphen between the words.
The Panel notes that the Complainant has a registered word mark for SVEA, and although the word “inkasso” may be considered as related in a descriptive way to the services offered by the Complainant, it is also the fact that the Complainant has a word mark registration for SVEA INKASSO in Denmark.
The Panel therefore concludes that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks SVEA and SVEA INKASSO. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case of the second element of the Policy, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 2.1.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent failed to invoke any circumstance which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case that it lacks rights or legitimate interests.
The Respondent has no rights to use the Complainant’s trademarks and is not an authorized agent or licensee of the Complainant’s products, services or trademarks. There is nothing in the Respondent’s name that indicates it may have become commonly known by the disputed domain name, enabling it to establish rights or legitimate interests in , nor any evidence in the present record to indicate that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.
On the contrary, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for sending false emails identifying itself as the Complainant, in an attempt to collect payment for unpaid bills, cannot create rights or legitimate interests as such.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
As concluded above, the Complainant’s trademarks SVEA and SVEA INKASSO are registered and known for the Services provided by the Compliant. Both the Complainant and the Respondent are based in Sweden.
It is obvious that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights.
The disputed domain name is used for emails identifying the sender as the Complainant and referring to unpaid bills that need to be paid. Any customer receiving such injunction and then visiting the connected website, will see the Complainant’s figurative trademark that will further increase the risk that the customer will draw the conclusion that the email order is sent from the Complainant. Such use is a clear example of bad faith.
Thus, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and that the Complainant has succeeded in proving the three elements within paragraph 4(a) 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.
Petter Rindforth
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy