The Complainants are Vida XL Europe B.V. and Haba Trading B.V. of Venray, Netherlands, and TM Handelsgesellschaft GmbH of Zug, Switzerland, represented by Schneiders & Behrendt, Germany.
The Respondent is Minh Hoang Nguyen of Pleiku, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with LiquidNet Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 21, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 26, 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 January 11, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 31, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on February 1, 2018.
The Center appointed Jacob (Changjie) Chen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 16, 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 Complainants in this proceeding include Vida XL Europe B.V. ("Complainant 1"), Haba Trading B.V. ("Complainant 2"), and TM Handelsgesellschaft GmbH ("Complainant 3"). The Complainants all belong to the Vida XL Group which is an online retailer of a wide range of products. Complainant 1 is the operator of the Vida XL Group's online platforms. Complainant 2 and Complainant 3 are the owners of several VIDAXL (with device)and/or VIDAXL.COM (with device) trademarks worldwide, inter alia, VIDAXL (with device), European Union Trade Mark ("EUTM") Registration Number 015377112, which was applied for on February 25, 2013, and registered on April 25, 2016, by Complainant 2, and EUTM Registration Number 015222185, registered by Complainant 2 on March 16, 2016; and VIDAXL.COM (with device) International Registration Number 1373535, which was applied for and registered on November 18, 2016, by Complainant 3.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 21, 2016, and the disputed domain name resolves to a website with furniture pictures. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainants contend that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks. The disputed domain name wholly incorporates "vidaxl" which is identical to the company name "Vida XL Europe" of Complainant 1 and the registered trademarks VIDAXL and VIDAXL.COM owned by Complainant 2 and Complainant 3. Furthermore, the generic terms "24" and "onlineshop", or "24onlineshop" do not confer a distinctive character to the disputed domain name.
The Complainants further contend that the Respondent has generally no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent cannot rely on any name or trademark rights with respect to the disputed domain name. There is no other legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, the Complainants have neither authorized, licensed, or permitted use of the trademarks VIDAXL or VIDAXL.COM by the Respondent, nor have formed any kind of business relationship with the Respondent.
The Complainants finally contend that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In registering and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gains by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants' name or marks. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants' contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainants have successfully established its rights over its trademark. In regard to the VIDAXL and VIDAXL.COM trademarks owned by Complainant 2 and Complainant 3, the registration dates trace back to April 25, 2016 and November 18, 2016.
For the Top-Level Domain suffix ".com", it typically does not have any impact on the overall impression of the disputed domain name and is irrelevant in this case when examining whether there is a confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainants' trademarks.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainants' trademark VIDAXL in its entirety. The UDRP jurisprudence has established that incorporation of a complainant's distinctive trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant's trademark. The terms "24" and "onlineshop", or "24onlineshop" are not distinctive elements and do not have sufficient impact on the disputed domain name to avoid a confusing similarity with the Complainants' trademark. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.8. Also see Jack Wolfskin Ausrüstung für Draussen GmbH & Co. KGaA v. bob rivera,WIPO Case No. D2013-0178.
As such, the Panel holds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel is satisfied that the Complainants have made out a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the burden of production is hence shifted to the Respondent to rebut the Complainant's contentions. In this case, based on the evidence before the Panel and the Respondent's failure to submit a response to rebut the Complainant's prima facie case, the Panel deems satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on November 21, 2016, which is later than the earliest application date of the Complainants' trademarks and is also later than the Complainants' registered marks VIDAXL (registered on April 25, 2016) and VIDAXL.COM (registered on November 18, 2016). The Panel notes that prior to the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, Complainant 1 had started its retailing business incorporating "Vida XL" in its company name since 2008 and later launched its own "Home & Furniture" products under the "Vida XL" brand in 2013. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website mainly purporting to sell furniture. Accordingly, the Panel is inclined to hold that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainants' trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name, containing the Complainants' trademarks, without any rights or legitimate interests is indicative of bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainants have asserted that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its mark. And the Panel notes that the addition of "24onlineshop" to the Complainants' mark strengthens a likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainants' mark. By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to trade on the goodwill associated with the Complainant's mark in order to attract traffic to the website under the disputed domain name and make profit therefrom. The bad faith in use of the disputed domain name hence can be established under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
For the reasons above, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name 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 cancelled.
Jacob (Changjie) Chen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 12, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy