The Complainant is Mecenat Aktiebolag of Gothenburg, Sweden, represented by Setterwalls Advokatbyrå AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Mecenat Accnt of Tirana, Albania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Gandi SAS (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 15, 2018. On March 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 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 March 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2018.
The Center appointed Beatrice Onica Jarka as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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 company with a business idea and activity to provide discounts and benefits for students. The student offers are accessible free of cost through the Mecenat app, online through the student discount platform at the company’s website, “” and by use of a student card called “Mecenatkortet” (“the Mecenat card”). Access to all student offers requires activation of an account at said website. The Complainant is well-known to students in Scandinavia where Mecenatkortet has 1.8 million users, of which 930.000 are students in Sweden.
The Complainant holds several trademark registrations, including: MECENAT, Swedish trademark registration No. 350736, registered on December 7, 2001; MECENAT, European Union trademark registration No. 005668521, registered on May 21, 2008.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 23, 2017, and resolves to a website giving the appearance of being connected to the Complainant and asking the users to input their personal information. The Respondent is unknown and privacy-protected, as the WhoIs data only provides the name “mecenat accnt” and the contact details for the Registrar. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant asserts that:
- the disputed domain name is similar to the Complainant’s trademark MECENAT for which it holds several trademark registrations;
- the trademark registrations of the Complainant cover, inter alia, magnetic identity cards and magnetic encoded cards in class 9 and advertising services in class 35, for which the trademark is also used
- the disputed domain name contains, letter-to-letter and without any additions or amendments, the Complainant’s trade name and registered trademark;
- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it is unknown and privacy-protected and further It can thus not be established that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, or has acquired any trademark or service mark rights thereto.
- there is further no evidence of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;
- the Complainant has not licensed nor authorized the use of its trademark or trade name to the Respondent;
- the disputed domain name is used under the website to which it resolves, in a misleading way, with the Complainant’s figurative trademark – for which the Complainant has trademark registrations (see section VI. A. c) and d) above) – in the upper left corner of the data input field;
- the Respondent’s business has the intent of commercial gain by misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark or trade name at issue, MECENAT;
- the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as the contents of the website connected to the disputed domain name are in Swedish and encourages the visitor to provide personal data in order to obtain a “card”, proving that the Respondent is familiar with the Complainant’s business, aimed at promoting offers to students precisely by activation of an account at their website “” and thereby receiving a digital and/or a physical student card;
- the Respondent, apparently familiar with the Swedish language, cannot have ignored the Complainant’s reputation and business operations at the time it registered the disputed domain name;
- the Complainant’s trademark registrations, registration and use of trade name and domain registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name;
- by the current use of the disputed domain name (see Annex 4), it is to the Complainant clear that the Respondent is attempting a) to disrupt the business of the Complainant by misleading the visitor by the creation of a false association to the Complainant’s business and trademarks, and/or b) to for commercial gain fraudulently attract visitors to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and trade name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website;
- the Respondent used a privacy or proxy service to keep private its personal identity;
- even if the use of such privacy service is not inherently evidence of bad faith, when such concealment is used to escape one’s legal responsibility, it might confirm a fraudulent intention. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
According to the Policy the Complainant should show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
Based on the assertions of the Complainant and the evidence presented supporting these assertions, the Panel finds that the Complainant holds rights in the MECENAT marks.
This Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered MECENAT marks because it fully incorporates the dominant element of the MECENAT marks.
For all the reasons above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MECENAT mark and that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Under this element of the Policy, the Complainant has to make at least a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent, as indicated in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and such showing has not been rebutted by the Respondent.
The Panel is persuaded by the Complainant’s assertions that the Respondent is not commonly known by the name “mecenat” and to the extent documented by the Complainant, it does not own a trademark with the term. Moreover, as the Complainant asserts, there is no link or no affiliation between the Respondent and the Complainant neither has the Respondent been known as “mecenat” in the past.
The Panel acknowledges that the disputed domain name does currently resolve to a website which, in a misleading way, displays the Complainant’s figurative trademark – for which the Complainant has trademark registrations – in the upper left corner of the data input field.
The documented assertions of the Complainant show that the Respondent was not using or intending to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, as his primary intention appears to have been to take advantage of the Complainant’s renown.
Accordingly, this Panel finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
This Panel agrees that the current use of the disputed domain name is an indication that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of the Complainant by misleading the visitor by the creation of a false association to the Complainant’s business and trademarks, and/or it is fraudulently attracting for commercial gain visitors to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and trade name as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’’s website.
Moreover, the use by the Respondent of privacy or proxy service to keep private its personal identity, is further indication of the Respondent’s attempt to escape its legal responsibility and cannot be interpreted as good faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.
Therefore, this Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, too.
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.
Beatrice Onica Jarka
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy