The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America ("US" or "United States") / Andrea Rellis of Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
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 December 12, 2017. On December 13, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 14, 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 15, 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 amendment to the Complaint on December 18, 2017.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 December 18, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 7, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 8, 2018.
The Center appointed James Bridgeman as the sole panelist in this matter on January 19, 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 Swedish joint stock company with an international business as a producer of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant's group of companies has approximately 58,000 employees and sells more than 60 million products to customers in more than 150 countries every year with annual sales of products amounting to SEK 124 billion, sold under the ELECTROLUX trademark and other trademarks and brand names.
The Complainant is the owner of a large portfolio of registrations for the ELECTROLUX trademark in more than 150 countries all over the world, including:
- US registered trademark ELECTROLUX, registration no. 0248774, registered on October 30, 1928, for goods in international class 11; and
- International trademark ELECTROLUX ULTRAPOWER, registration 1126087, registered on July 18, 2012, for goods in class 7.
The ELECTROLUX trademark is used by the Complainant for kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users. In addition, the Complainant has registered and uses a number of generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") domain names and country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") domain names incorporating the ELECROLUX mark, including , which was created on April 30, 1996, and . These domain names resolve to the Complainant's website through which it informs potential customers about its ELECTROLUX mark and its products and services.
In the absence of a Response or any communications from the Respondent, the only information available about the Respondent is that provided by the Registrar disclosing the Respondent's name and contact details, the details in the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information in the Complaint and Amended Complaint.
The disputed domain name is registered by the second named Respondent using a privacy service provided by the first named Respondent. The second named Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain name and references to "Respondent" in this Decision are to the second named Respondent except where the context otherwise indicates.
The Respondent is the owner of the disputed domain name which was registered on November 27, 2017. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights arguing that the disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant's well-known, registered trademark ELECTROLUX which is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the addition of a hyphen, the geographical element "se", the commonly used abbreviation of Sweden (the country where the Complainant is incorporated), and the gTLD ".com" does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the ELECTROLUX trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), sections 1.7, 1.8, and 1.11).
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant denies any association with the Respondent and avers that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name; that it has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; and that there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website.
The Complainant has provided as evidence details of emails sent to members of its staff that purport to come from the Complainant's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO"), sent from the email address […]@electrolux‑. The Complainant alleges that these emails emanate from the Respondent who is in control of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is therefore impersonating and deceptively misidentifying itself as the Complainant's own President and CEO with the intention of attempting fraud on the Complainant by exercising attacks on the Complainant's staff. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent cannot acquire any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name by holding the disputed domain name for the purpose of furtherance of a fraud through impersonation. In this regard the Complainant refers to the decision of the panel in The Swatch Group AG and Swatch AG v. Christopher Biedermann / Marcin Rulnicki,WIPO Case No. D2017-0388 and to the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1, which states that "[p]anels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent."
The Complainant further alleges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant requests this Panel to note that its goodwill and reputation in the ELECTOLUX name and mark and its ownership of the above-referenced trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that it has been established in previous UDRP decisions that ELECTROLUX is considered a well-known trademark. See, for example, Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager,WIPO Case No. D2008-0823, regarding the domain name .
Furthermore, the Complainant refers to section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 which states that "given that the use of a domain name for per se illegitimate activity such as the sale of counterfeit goods or phishing can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent, such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith."
The Complainant further alleges that at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, the registrant was clearly aware of the Complainant and its ELECTROLUX trademark. This is shown by the use of the well-known ELECTROLUX trademark combined with the abbreviation for Sweden, "se", the country where the Complainant is incorporated. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to mimic the Complainant's official domain name .
The Respondent's knowledge of and targeting of the Complainant is further demonstrated by the use of the name of the Complainant's President and CEO in the email address from which the allegedly fraudulent emails were sent to its employees, whereby the Respondent was posing as the Complainant's CEO and President in order to try and trick the Complainant's employee to make certain payments.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent is conducting so called "CEO fraud" and asks this Panel to note that various UDRP panels have found that a respondent operating CEO fraud does not have any rights or legitimate interests the disputed domain name and that CEO fraud establishes bad faith use and registration of the subject domain name. See, for example, The Swatch Group AG and Swatch AG v. Christopher Biedermann / Marcin Rulnicki,WIPO Case No. D2017-0388; Accenture Global Services Limited v. Heymann Frams Tech,WIPO Case No. D2017-1591; Leaseweb IP B.V. v. WPS, Ltd. / Timothy Burr, Elit'Avia d.o.o.,WIPO Case No. D2016-1486; Centrale der Werkgevers aan de Haven van Antwerpen (CEPA) CVBA v. Contact Privacy Inc. / Nikos Arkadis,WIPO Case No. D2016-2069; Insight Investment Management Limited v. Hossein Fazlollahi,WIPO Case No. DCO2016-0004; CitiusTech Healthcare Technology Private Limited v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2015-2186.
Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the registration of a domain name including a well-known trademark such as ELECTROLUX points to bad faith, and that the lack of an active website at a disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith.
The Complainant concludes that for the reasons set out above, the Complainant cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known trademark. Neither can the Complainant conceive any legitimate use for the deceptive email address created at the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to establish that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has provided evidence of its ownership of and rights the ELECTROLUX trademark established through its above-referenced portfolio of registered trademarks and the goodwill established by its extensive use of the mark in its international business.
The disputed domain name is composed of four elements, namely, the term "electrolux", a hyphen, and the letters "se", in combination, followed by the gTLD extension ".com".
The term "electrolux" is identical to the Complainant's trademark and is the first, dominant, and only distinctive element in the disputed domain name. The hyphen adds no distinctive character to the disputed domain name. In the context of an Internet domain name, the letters "se" are imitative of the ".se" ccTLD extension for Sweden. The ".com" gTLD extension may be ignored in the context of this Complaint.
Having compared both, this Panel finds therefore that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark because the only distinctive element in the disputed domain name is the term "electrolux" and the letters "se" are likely to be taken by Internet users to refer to the Swedish ccTLD ".se" in circumstances where the Complainant is a Swedish corporation.
The Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name; the Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or any evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; and furthermore, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.
Additionally the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain name has been used by the Respondent to send emails to the Complainant's employees purporting to come from and impersonating the Complainant's President and CEO. Such use cannot establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
It is well established that in such circumstances the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to establish its rights and legitimate interests. The Respondent has failed to discharge this burden and so the Complainant is entitled to succeed in the second element, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
ELECTROLUX is distinctive trademark with an international reputation which was established many years before the disputed domain name was registered on November 27, 2017. The Complainant is a Swedish corporation. The dominant and only distinctive element of the disputed domain name is the Complainant's distinctive mark. The letters "se" are common abbreviations for Sweden and in the context of an Internet domain name are the letters for the Swedish ccTLD ".se" extension. It is therefore most improbable that the disputed domain name was chosen and registered for any purpose other than to target the Complainant.
The Complainant has provided evidence that the Respondent has caused, permitted or allowed the disputed domain name to be used as an email address from which messages purporting to emanate from the Complainant's President and CEO have been sent to employees of the Complainant. This has not been challenged or refuted by the Respondent.
This Panel finds therefore that on the evidence adduced, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has therefore succeeded in establishing the third and final element, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, and is entitled to the relief sought in the Complaint. 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.
James Bridgeman
Sole Panelist
Date: January 23, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy