The Complainant is AB Kvällstidningen Expressen of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Danowsky & Partners Advokatbyrå KB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Privacy Contact, UnoEuro Webhosting of Skanderborg, Denmark. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the "Domain Name") is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 14, 2018. On May 14, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 15, 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 May 25, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 15, 2018.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on June 27, 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 publishes the newspaper Expressen. Since its first issue in 1944, it has been one of Sweden's most widespread and read dailies, with approximately 500,000 daily readers. The website, "", where the digital version of the newspaper is presented, has around 2.5 million readers a day. This makes EXPRESSEN one of Sweden's most well-known trademarks.
The Complainant has used the name EXPRESSEN as a trademark since 1944. The trademark EXPRESSEN has been and is used in connection with newspapers, magazines, photographs, advertisement and marketing, text and photographs in articles in databases, articles, telecommunication, providing access to databases on the Internet containing articles etc.
The Complainant holds the trademark EXPRESSEN with the Swedish Patent and Registration office within the classes 9, 16 and 35, registered on November 23, 2012. The Complainant is also the holder of other related trademarks.
ln addition to "", the Complainant is also the holder of the registered domain names and .
According to the Registrar, the Domain Name was registered on March 13, 2018. At the time of filing the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage presenting an offer to subscribe to Viaplay and an article on how to receive remuneration from an online casino. The content of the web page was in the Swedish language and designed to mimic the Complainant's web page. At the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name resolves to an "error page". 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides trademark registrations and submits that its trademark is well-known. The Complainant argues that the Respondent, when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, was aware of the Complainant's newspaper and webpage (""). The Domain Name is a misspelling of the Complainant's trademark and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent's use does not constitute a fair or legitimate noncommercial use of the Domain Name.
As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant's trademark is well-known in Sweden. The fact that the Domain Name is a misspelling of the Complainant's name, and the fact that the web page the Domain Name has resolved to mimics the Complainant's web page and copy the Complainant's logo and layout, underline the bad faith of the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark EXPRESSEN.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. The change of the letter "e" to "a" in the middle of the word represents a misspelling that does not provide sufficient distinction from the Complainant's mark. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) ".com", see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0"), section 1.11.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademarks or otherwise make use of its marks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
It is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name, in particular taking into account the fame of the Complainant's newspaper, and the misspelling and mimicking of the Complainant's official web page. The misspelling and mimicking mislead consumers to believe that they have entered the Complainant's genuine site. By registering and using the Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark.
The above finding is backed by the fact that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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 Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: July 9, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy