The Complainant is Svea Ekonomi AB of Solna, Sweden, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama / Ryan Hostetler, of Laholm, Sweden. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Disputed Domain Name") is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 21, 2017. On November 21, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On November 22, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 6, 2017 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 11, 2017.
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 December 13, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 3, 2018.
The Center appointed Anders Janson as the sole panelist in this matter on January 12, 2018. 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 asserted, and provided evidence in support of, the following facts, which the Panel finds established.
The Disputed Domain Name was registered on January 23, 2017. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a web page displaying pay-per-click links.
The Complainant is a Swedish independent financial company with over thirty years' of experience operating in the credit market and performing financial and administrative services. The Complainant is one of the companies in a group authorized by the Swedish Financial Supervisory Authority and the group has offices in eight countries. The group is a leading actor in northern Europe for financial and administrative services and has been active since 1981.
The Complainant holds registrations in Sweden and the European Union ("EU") regarding the terms "SVEA INKASSO" and "SVEA". The Complainant owns the Swedish trademarks SVEA INKASSO AB registered on December 11, 1992 (registration No. 243862) and SVEA registered on December 21, 2001 (registration No. 351324). The Complainant also owns European Union Trademarks SVEA INKASSO (registration No. 016944274) and SVEA registered on February 5, 2009 (registration No. 005050034). 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant has trademark rights registered with regards to the wording "SVEA INKASSO". The Complainant's trademark was registered well before the Respondent became the owner of the Disputed Domain Name and has been used by the Complainant for a long time. The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered rights as the Disputed Domain Name consists of the Complainant's entire trademark. The addition of a hyphen does not bring any visual or conceptual impact to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the Complainant´s trademark.
The Respondent does not have any rights to use the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant and the Complainant has not given the Respondent any permission to register the trademark as the Disputed Domain Name or to use or present an offering of goods and services on the website under the Complainants' trademark. The Complainant has the exclusive right to use the trademark SVEA INKASSO for advertising.
The website of the Disputed Domain Name is being used to make clear connections to the Complainant's goods and services. A link farm, presented on the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves, includes the link "SVEA INKASSO" as well as links including other registered trademarks owned by the Complainant such as "SVEA", and "SVEA FINANS". The Respondent does not only present the Complainant's trademark, the Respondent also presents information on the website relating to the Complainant's protected goods and/or services and competitors to the Complainant. The website is thus constructed to mislead visitors not only to believe that the Respondent is the owner of the trademark but also to take advantage of the Complainant's goodwill and draw customers' attention to competitors which leads to a loss for the Complainant. This stipulates bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Given the facts in the case file and the Respondent's failure to file a Response, the Panel accepts as true the contentions of the Complainant. The Respondent's default does not however automatically lead to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant must still establish, to the Panel's satisfaction, that it is entitled to a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name under the Policy.
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) That the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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 Disputed Domain Name is and therefore contains the Complainant's registered trademark in its entirety. The additional non-distinctive hyphen and generic Top-Level Domain ".org" are insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the trademark of the Complainant.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Since the Panel has already found that the Complainant has offered satisfactory evidence of its exclusive rights concerning the trademark SVEA INKASSO, the burden of production has shifted to the Respondent to bring forth evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the trademark.
The Respondent has not replied to the Complainant's contentions. In light of the fact that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark to apply for or use the Disputed Domain Name incorporating the trademark the Respondent has not met its burden of production that it would have a right or legitimate interests in the trademark. The Panel therefore finds in favor of the Complainant, that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the trademark SVEA INKASSO.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
When the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name approximately one year ago the Respondent declared its contact information to be an email, a physical address in Sweden and a phone number with a Swedish country code prefix. Neither the address in Sweden nor the Swedish phone number exist and the email does not seem to function. It appears that the Respondent has taken deliberate steps to ensure that communication with it cannot be made and it is likely that the identity the Respondent has given is not its true identity.
The Complainant has several trademark registrations in Sweden and in the European Union and, in addition, the trademark has been in use for a long period of time. The Complainant is well-known by its trademark in northern Europe – and especially in Sweden since the Complainant is a Swedish based Company authorized by a Swedish Authority.
In light of these facts, it is not possible to conceive of a plausible explanation that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant's trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered in bad faith.
With respect to the use of the Disputed Domain Name, the website includes information relating to the protected goods and services which is misleading visitors and creates such a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark for commercial interest that constitutes evidence of bad faith according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The small disclaimer on the website stating that the Respondent does not have a relationship with advertisers is not enough to avoid the likelihood of confusion. The website takes advantage of the goodwill of the Complainant's trademark and diverts visitors to the website for the Respondents own commercial benefit which in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy constitutes evidence of bad faith. No facts in the case file have alter this presumption.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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.
Anders Janson
Sole Panelist
Date: January 29, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy