The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Amr Amer of Cairo, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 13, 2017. On March 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On March 14, 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 March 22, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 11, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on April 13, 2017.
The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on May 15, 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 is AB Electrolux which is one of the world's leading household appliance manufacturers.
The Zanussi brand is one of the Complainant's strategic brands. The Zanussi business has been in operation since 1916 and was acquired by the Complainant in 1984, strengthening the Complainant's position as a global leader in household appliances.
The Complainant, through its wholly owned subsidiary Electrolux Italia S.p.A, owns registered trade marks for ZANUSSI (the "Trade Mark") in a number of jurisdictions, including in Egypt where the Respondent is based. The Egypt designated trade mark (International trade mark registration number 1201466) was registered on March 6, 2014.
The Complainant is also the owner of a number of domain names consisting of its Trade Mark, including: and , which are used to promote Zanussi products.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on August 25, 2016. The website at the Disputed Domain Name (the "Respondent Website") offers an unauthorized repair and maintenance service for Zanussi products. The Respondent Website features the Complainant's Trade Mark a number of times. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant Identical or confusingly similar
The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark given that the Trade Mark is included in its entirety. The only difference is the inclusion of the country name "Egypt" which, as a geographic indicator, does not differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the Trade Mark and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com" which does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. Rights or legitimate interests
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no connection with the Dispute Domain Name and is unable to demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Complainant takes particular issue with the fact that the unauthorized use of its Trade Mark in the Disputed Domain Name and on the Respondent Website incorrectly suggests that a legitimate relationship exists with the Complainant. The Complainant refers to the test that was established in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v ASD, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 which identified four elements which must be satisfied to establish whether use of a trade mark as a domain name by a third party is to be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submits that the Respondent fails on at least three of these elements. Registration and use in bad faith
The Complainant highlights that the registration of the Trade Mark pre-dates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name and submits that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant's business and international profile.
The Complainant also points out that the email address listed in the WhoIs details for the Disputed Domain Name includes the registered trade marks of two direct competitors to the Complainant. This is a further demonstration of the unlikelihood that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's Trade Mark.
Prior to the lodging of its Complaint in relation to this Disputed Domain Name, the Complainant sent two cease and desist letters to the Respondent advising of the unauthorized trade mark use and requesting the voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. No response was received from the Respondent, however the Disputed Domain Name was deleted and then re-registered by the Respondent, at which point this Complaint was initiated. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
To succeed, the Complainant must prove that each of the elements provided in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met. These include:
(i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
Regardless of the fact the Respondent has not filed a response, the onus of proving these elements remains on the Complainant. A. Procedural Issues
No response from the Respondent
The Respondent's failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Airbus SAS, Airbus Operations GmbH v. Alesini Pablo Hernan / PrivacyP,WIPO Case No. D2013-2059). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent's default.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
According to the Complaint, the trade mark rights on which the Complainant relies are owned by the Complainant's wholly owned subsidiary, Electrolux Italia S.p.A., and not by the Complainant. Previous UDRP panels have accepted that a company related as a parent or subsidiary to the owner of a trade mark on which a complaint is based will have the required trade mark rights for the purpose of the Policy. Accordingly, the Complainant has the requisite rights in the Trade Mark.
The Panel considers that the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the Trade Mark in its entirety, is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The inclusion of the geographical term "Egypt" and the gTLD ".com" does nothing to detract from this confusion.
The Complainant is successful on the first element of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case for the following reasons.
According to the Complaint, the website at the Disputed Domain Name offers repair and maintenance services for the Complainant's products (using the Trade Mark).
In certain circumstances, a third party may legitimately sell a trade mark owner's products or offer services relating to a trade mark owner's products using a domain name which incorporates the relevant trade mark without the trade mark owner's permission (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 ("Oki Data")).
The panel in Oki Data stated that a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in a domain name if its use meets the following requirements:
- the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
- the respondent must use the site to sell only the trade marked goods (otherwise, there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trade mark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods);
- the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent's relationship with the trade mark owner; and
- the respondent must not try to "corner the market" in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trade mark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name does not satisfy the elements of the Oki Data test. The Respondent appears to falsely represent itself as being the owner of the Trade Mark, or otherwise being affiliated with or authorized by the owner of the Trade Mark to offer repair and maintenance services. This representation is made by the Respondent's use of the Complainant's logo and by other text on the Respondent Website. There is no statement on the website which discloses the fact that the Respondent is not actually an authorized service centre.
Further, based on evidence provided in the Complaint, it appears that, before notice of the dispute, the Respondent may have been using the website at the Disputed Domain Name to offer maintenance and repair services for brands other than Zanussi.
For these reasons, the Respondent has failed to meet the Oki Data test. Use of the Disputed Domain Name in these circumstances cannot be considered as being bona fide.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so.
The Complainant is successful on the second element of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant's brand is well known internationally having been in operation since 1901. The Complainant has demonstrated the importance of its intellectual property by registering trade marks and domain names associated with its business. As the business has expanded internationally, it has added relevant jurisdictions to its trade mark registrations. The Complainant has also actively defended these trademarks.
It is likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when registering the Disputed Domain Name, and that the Disputed Domain Name was registered for the primary purpose of commercial gain. This is evident from the fact that the Respondent is offering commercial services which relate specifically to the Complainant's products.
The fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's two cease and desist letters, considered together with the fact that the Disputed Domain Name was deleted and then re-registered by the Respondent following the issuing of these letters, further demonstrates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith. See, e.g., AB Electrolux v. Yasser Merdash,WIPO Case No. D2016-1352.
Consideration has also been given to the fact the Respondent had an opportunity to rebut the Complainant's contentions, but did not do so. It has not provided any evidence as to its reasons for registering and using the Disputed Domain Name.
In light of the above, the Panel finds the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.
The Complainant is successful on the third element 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.
John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: May 29, 2017
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy