The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Noah of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed 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 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2018.
The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 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 leading manufacturer of cleaning, kitchen and professional appliances, selling more than 60 million products to customers in more than 150 countries.
The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark ELECTROLUX in numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union trade mark ELECTROLUX No. 000077925, registered on September 16,1998, that covers services in classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 35 and 37.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 28, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends in essence:
- That the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark ELECTROLUX because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the insertion of the letter “i” between “electro” and “lux” does not suffice to avoid confusing similarity;
- That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no bona fide use of the disputed domain name, considering that it resolves to an inactive website and that a search conducted by the Complainant did not reveal any rights that the Respondent might have in the disputed domain name;
- That on February 27, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, but that the Respondent did not react;
- That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it must have been aware of the reputation of the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX;
- That the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by failing to respond to the cease and desist letter and passively holding the disputed domain name which incorporates the well-known mark ELECTROLUX. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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 shown that it holds (among others) the European Union trade mark ELECTROLUX
No. 000077925, registered in 1998, that covers services in classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 35 and 37.
The trademark ELECTROLUX is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name . Considering that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” as such is disregarded under the confusing similarity test, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because the insertion of the letter “i” between the word elements “electro” and “lux” does not suffice to avoid confusing similarity.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant contends, credibly, that it conducted a search which did not reveal any rights that the Respondent might have in the disputed domain name. There is no relationship whatsoever between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant has further shown that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. None of the other circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are applicable.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel considers the trademark ELECTROLUX to be well known (see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager,WIPO Case No. D2008-0823, ).
Considering that the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark is well known in numerous countries, including the United Kingdom where the Respondent is domiciled, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel also holds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX, constitutes use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The fact that the Respondent failed to answer to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter of February 27, 2018 reinforces a finding of bad faith.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Andrea Mondini
Sole Panelist
Date: June 11, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy