The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Ali Hashem, Agent Egypt of Cairo, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Launchpad, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 7, 2018. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 7, 2018, 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 February 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 5, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 6, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrew J. Park as the sole panelist in this matter on March 20, 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, AB Electrolux is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products.
The ZANUSSI brand was founded in 1916 and stands for Italian innovation with flair, and its yellow-black color combination and distinctive logo have made it recognizable throughout Europe and neighboring countries for many decades. In 1984, the Complainant acquired the Italian appliance manufacturer Zanussi making the Complainant the leader in household appliances for consumers and professionals. In 2011, the Complainant acquired Egypt’s leading appliance manufacturer the Olympic Group and expanded its presence even further to the Middle East.
The Complainant has registered a number of domain names that contain the name “zanussi,” including (registered November 17, 2005) and (registered December 16, 2002). The Complainant also owns several trademarks for ZANUSSI valid in Egypt where the Respondent appears to be located, and these trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 19, 2017 and it resolves to a website in Arabic that promotes household appliances and related repair services, prominently displaying the Complainant’s logo. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant because:
1) the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark ZANUSSI. The only difference between the disputed domain name and the trademark is the addition of the generic word “service” and the geographic word “egypt.” The addition of generic or geographic terms does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark and are not considered to be distinguishing elements when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between a Complainant’s trademark and a disputed domain name. Therefore, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI.
2) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in relation to the Complainant’s registered trademark ZANUSSI. The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and 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 and services. The Complainant never authorized the Respondent as its reseller or repair center and there is no official or authorized relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent for the purposes of repairs and services within Egypt. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website where the Respondent offers repair and maintenance services for ZANUSSI products. It is clear that the Respondent is taking advantage of the Complainant’s well-known trademark ZANUSSI.
3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademark registration of ZANUSSI is much prior to the Respondent becoming the owner of the disputed domain name in 2017. The Complainant has a great level of notoriety in the market through the use of the trademark ZANUSSI and it is obvious that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite being aware of the Complainant’s exclusive rights to the ZANUSSI mark to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation. The Complainant insists that the Respondent has failed to respond to any communication attempts made by the Complainant, which should be considered an indication of the Respondent’s bad faith registration. The Complainant also insists that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for its website in which the Respondent is offering repair and maintenance services of Zanussi products to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
This element consists of two parts; first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant trademark and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has established registered rights in the mark, ZANUSSI and that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, and the addition of descriptive or geographic terms in a domain name does nothing to prevent a finding that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark (Proactiva Medio Ambiente, S.A. v. Proactiva,WIPO Case No. D2012-0182).
For these reasons, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
Here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
The Complainant has asserted that the Respondent has no relationship with or authorization from the Complainant to use its trademarks. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. Also, there is no indication in the record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Finally, it is noted from the Complainant’s contentions that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for its website in which the Respondent is offering repair and maintenance services of Zanussi products. The panel notes that such use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent does not constitute a right or legitimate interest to use the Complainant’s trademark. See, Sony Corporation v. Domain Admin, P,WIPO Case No. D2017-2341, citing the factors set forth in
Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, and also WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.
The Panel’s view is that these facts may be taken as true in the circumstances of this case and in view of the use of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exclusive list of circumstances that evidence registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Any one of the following is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). Specifically, the Complainant claims that the Respondent violated the Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv), and has registered the disputed domain name that contains the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI for its website in which the Respondent is offering repair and maintenance services of Zanussi products to attract Internet users to the website by creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website for commercial gain.
As stated previously, the Respondent did not file any response to the Complaint, failing thereby to rebut the Complainant’s allegations of the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Nevertheless, the Panel still has the responsibility of determining which of the Complainant’s assertions are established as facts, and whether the conclusions asserted by the Complainant can be drawn from the established facts (see, Harvey Norman Retailing Pty Ltd v. Oxford-University,WIPO Case No. D2000-0944).
The Panel finds that the Complainant’s registered trademark, ZANUSSI, is well-known, that it has been used for over 10 years. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the Panel confirms that there is no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent is commonly known by, has been commonly known under, or has a bona fide intent to use or be commonly known under the disputed domain name or the name “Zanussi”. It was clear that the Respondent is taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark by including the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI in the disputed domain name and creating the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website to attract more Internet users to its website in which the Respondent is offering repair and maintenance services for Zanussi products for commercial gain.
Accordingly, the evidence shows that the Respondent likely knew of and has sought to take unfair advantage of the similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark in violation of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
As the conduct described above falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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.
Andrew J. Park
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy