The Complainant is One2move International ApS of Randers, Denmark, represented by Løje, Arnesen & Meedom LLP, Denmark.
The Respondent is One2Move of Hornslet, Denmark. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba J (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 17, 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 September 18, 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 September 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 17, 2018.
The Center appointed Lone Prehn as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 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 in this administrative proceeding is the Danish company One2move International ApS, with an address in Randers, Denmark. The company is 100 percent owned by LuxWise S.a.r.l of Luxembourg, cf Annex 1.
The Complainant is part of the One2Move group, which is a group of companies with primary activities within the field of vehicles and car rental and leasing under the name/brand One2Move. The group also includes the Complainant’s 100 percent owned Danish subsidiary, One2Move DK ApS, Annex 2, and the Complainant’s three sister companies, One2Move Biludlejning ApS, Navneselskabet af 01.07.2008 ApS, and Navneselskabet af 28.08.2009 ApS, all owned 100 percent by the same legal owner as the Complainant, cf Annexes 3, 4 and 5.
The Complainant is the owner of European Union trade mark (“EUTM”) 15724024 ONE2MOVE (device), registered on December 2, 2016, and EUTM 17872856 ONE2MOVE (word), registered on July 6, 2018 covering inter alia, services in Class 39 related to car rental services, cf Annex 9a-9b. Furthermore, the Complainant is the owner of Danish trademark VR 2008 00993 ONE2MOVE (device) with priority from February 1, 2008, and VR 2013 02477 One2move (device) with priority from April 10, 2013.
The disputed domain name was originally registered on April 30, 2007, and redirects Internet users to the Complainant’s website at “”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ONE2MOVE trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that it was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Furthermore, the Complainant contends that though the initial registration of the disputed domain name took place on April 30, 2007, it was first registered in the name of the Respondent on September 6, 2009. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has evidenced that it holds rights to Danish trademark VR 2008 00993 ONE2MOVE (device) with priority from February 1, 2008, cf Annex 10a and 11a. Since the domain name is identical with the distinctive word elements of the Complainant’s above trademark, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has shown that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.
The first part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) provides:
“While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of ‘proving a negative’, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.”
The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to present any evidence to establish rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.
Considering the absence of a Response by the Respondent to the Complainant’s contentions and the fact that the Respondent was granted neither a license nor an authorization to make any use of the Complainant’s trademark, the Panel finds the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is therefore satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith. Absent any Response from the Respondent, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2009, subsequent to the accrual of the Complainant’s trade mark rights. The Respondent clearly knew of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name as it is being used to redirect to redirect Internet users to the Complainant’s website.
This case falls within the scope of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
“[…] by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.”
Previous panels have found that using a domain name in order to redirect Internet users to the complainant’s website may support a finding of bad faith as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant (see, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4).
The third part of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is, therefore, satisfied. 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.
Lone Prehn
Sole Panelist
Date: November 1, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy