The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. of Pully, Switzerland, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Marjorie Secrest of Round Rock, Texas, United States of America (“United States”). 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 November 23, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 30, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 November 30, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 20, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 21, 2017.
The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 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 is a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland. It forms part of the Tetra Pak group of companies, which is a multinational food processing and packing concern.
The Complainant is the owner of over numerous registrations throughout the world for the trademark TETRA PAK including, for example, United States trademark number 586480 for TETRA PAK registered on March 9, 1954 in Class 16.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 21, 2017.
The disputed domain name does not appear to have resolved to any active website. However, the Complainant has produced evidence of an email sent from an email address “[…]@” enclosing and requesting payment of an invoice. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant states that it was founded in Sweden in 1947 and is now a world leading company in the field of food packaging and distribution, employing over 32,000 individuals in over 170 countries. The Complainant provides evidence of over 2,000 word or figurative trademarks including the mark TETRA PAK registered in over 160 countries and of over 300 domain name registrations including the term “tetrapak”. The Complainant submits that as a result of its longstanding use of its TETRA PAK trademark in commerce the trademark has become a well-known trademark within the Complainant’s field of business.
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights. It contends that the disputed domain name comprises its trademark TETRA PAK in its entirety together with the abbreviation “ch”, being the country code for Switzerland. The Complainant contends that the addition of this descriptive abbreviation does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark, but rather gives the impression of an association with the Complainant’s business in Switzerland.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that it is not associated with the Respondent and has never authorized it to use its TETRA PAK trademark. The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no trademark rights or trading name corresponding to the disputed domain name and that it has not commonly been known by that name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent deliberately registered the disputed domain name to imply an association with the Complainant and for the purposes of fraud. The Complainant relies on the email referred to above from the email address “[…]@”, which states that the CEO of the Complainant has asked that the invoice be sent.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. The Complainant states that it is obvious in all the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and can have chosen the disputed domain name only for the purpose of taking unfair advantage of that trademark. The Complainant relies on the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name for the purpose of sending a fraudulent email as clear evidence of bad faith. The Complainant also produces a “reverse WhoIs” search and contends that the Respondent has registered a large number of other domain names including the names of well-known companies.
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are:
(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 has established that it has extensive and longstanding registered trademark rights throughout the world for the mark TETRA PAK. The disputed domain name incorporates that trademark in its entirety together with the additional term “-ch”. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission that the addition of that term is not effective to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark and, on the contrary, gives the impression that it is related to the Complainant’s business in Switzerland. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case for the Respondent to answer that it has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not participated in this proceeding and has not, therefore, submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. There being no other evidence before the Panel of any such rights or legitimate interests, 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 Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark TETRA PAK is distinctive and widely known and can conceive of no explanation for the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name other than to impersonate the Complainant. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s evidence, which the Respondent has not disputed, that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for the purpose of sending what appears to be a fraudulent email seeking payment of an invoice (commonly known as a “CEO fraud”). Such use of the disputed domain name clearly constitutes use in bad faith and the Panel therefore concludes 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy