The Complainant is Dyson Technology Limited of Tetbury Hill, Malmesbury, United Kingdom, represented internally.
The Respondent is Edenilson Rodriguez of Lawrenceville, Georgia, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , and (the “Domain Names”) are registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2018. On November 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On November 19, 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 November 28, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 18, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018.
The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2019. 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 corporation based in the United Kingdom, part of a group of companies that is primarily engaged in the design, development and sale of domestic vacuum cleaners under the DYSON Mark. On October 9, 2018 the Complainant launched a hair styler product, the Dyson Airwrap styler. The Complainant maintains a website at “” that includes a page dedicated to promoting the Dyson Airwrap styler (“the Complainant’s Website”).
The Complainant is the owner of trade mark registrations for the word “airwrap” (the “AIRWRAP Mark”), including a trade mark registered on April 13, 2018 (registration number 017560971), in the European Union for various goods relating to hair styling apparatus in classes 8, 11 and 21.
The Domain Names , , and were registered on October 29, 2018, October 29, 2018 and October 23, 2018 respectively. The Domain Name is inactive. The Domain Name (at the date of the decision) and (prior to the commencement of the proceeding) resolve/resolved to a website (“the Respondent’s Website”) that advertises the Dyson Airwrap styler, reproduces both the DYSON and AIRWRAP Marks, purports to be an official website of the Complainant, and is almost a complete copy of the Complainant’s website, reproducing the photos and website design. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant makes the following contentions:
(i) that the Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIRWRAP Mark;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names; and
(iii) that the Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant is the owner of the AIRWRAP Mark, having registered the AIRWRAP Mark in the European Union. The Domain Names each reproduce of the AIRWRAP Mark along with additional words which either describe the product or indicate that the website sells the product.
There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Names. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Names nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Names. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Names. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Names to resolve to a website that purports to be the Complainant’s Website, offering to sell the Dyson Airwrap product for a price below even the production cost of the product. Such use is not bona fide.
The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Names for a website that reproduces material from the Complainant’s Website and purports to be the official website of the Complainant, it can be inferred that the Domain Names are used to misleadingly redirect the Complainant’s customers to websites unconnected to it for commercial gain. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Names in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and each Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark.
The Complainant is the owner of the AIRWRAP Mark, having registrations for AIRWRAP as a trade mark in the European Union.
Each of the Domain Names incorporates the AIRWRAP Mark in its entirety with the addition of a descriptive term, either “styler” which describes the product itself or “store” or “shop” which indicates that the website sells the Airwrap product. The addition of such descriptive terms to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. An individual viewing any of the Domain Names may be confused into thinking that each of the Domain Names would refer to a site in some way connected to the Complainant. The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s AIRWRAP Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:
“Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):
(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.”
The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Names or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the AIRWRAP Mark or a mark similar to the AIRWRAP Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Names in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use.
Rather it appears that the Respondent has used (or in the case of , likely intends to use) the Domain Names to operate a website that, without the permission of the Complainant, passes itself off as the Complainant’s official “Dyson Airwrap” website in order to defraud the Complainant’s customers by persuading them to provide the Respondent with financial details in the course of ordering what the customers perceive to be official “Dyson Airwrap” products. Such conduct is fraudulent, and does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Names under the Policy. In the absence of such a response the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has 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 trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its 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 trade mark 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 (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).
The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the AIRWRAP Mark at the time the Domain Names were registered. The Respondent’s Website purports to sell the Complainant’s products and includes material directly copied from the Complainant’s Website. The registration of the Domain Names in awareness of the AIRWRAP Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts under these circumstances to registration in bad faith.
The Respondent has used the Domain Names (or in the case of , likely intends to use) to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s Website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s AIRWRAP Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. The Respondent’s Website is used to deceive the Complainant’s customers either for the purpose of selling them counterfeit Dyson Airwrap products or simply manipulate them into divulging their credit card details. The Respondent likely receives a financial reward from Internet users who visit the Respondent’s Website under the impression (created by the Domain Names and the content of the Respondent’s Website) that it is somehow connected to the Complainant. The Panel finds that such use amounts to use in bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith 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 Domain Names , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Nicholas Smith
Sole Panelist
Date: January 9, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy