The Complainant is UAB Lietuvos energija, Lithuania, represented by TGS Baltic, Lithuania.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain names , , , and (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 13, 2019. On August 13, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On August 14, 2019, 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 August 21, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 10, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 11, 2019.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on September 24, 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 state controlled private limited liability company in Lithuania, and the parent company of the Lietuvos Energija Group that is responsible for managing and coordinating the companies’ activities. The companies are engaged in power and heat generation and distribution, natural gas trade and distribution, and supporting services.
The Complainant is the owner of European Union (“EU”) trademark registrations, such as IGNITIS INNOVATION HUB, trademark No. 018052078; IGNITIS POWER, trademark No. 018052262; IGNITIS GROUP, trademark No. 018052277; IGNITIS RENEWABLES, trademark No. 018052272; and IGNITIS ON (figurative), trademark No. 018052087. All filed on April 16, 2019 and registered on August 7, 2019.
The Domain Names were created on April 16, 2019. At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Names resolved to webpages offering the Domain Names for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant provides evidence of trademark registrations. The Complainant argues that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. The Complainant points out that the Domain Names were registered on the same day the Complainant filed its trademark applications with the European Union Intellectual Property Office.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names. The Respondent is not connected or associated with the Complainant’s business and the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent does not own any registrations for trademarks incorporating the “ignitis” name, and the Respondent has never been commonly known by the “ignitis” name. Moreover, theirs is no evidence of the Respondent’s use of, or preparations to use, the Domain Names in connection with bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant believes that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark due to the fact that the Complainant’s application for EU trademarks was public available. The Respondent has offered the Domain Names for sale from USD 988 to USD 990. It indicates that the Domain Names were registered primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Disputed Domain Name registrations to the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs. 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 trademarks IGNITIS INNOVATION HUB, IGNITIS POWER, IGNITIS GROUP, IGNITIS RENEWABLES and IGNITIS ON.
The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademarks and the Domain Names. In this case, the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant’s trademarks. 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 Name (“gTLD”); 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 Names are identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register domain names containing the Complainant’s trademarks or otherwise make use of the trademarks. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. There is no evidence that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names as a trademark or acquired any rights. The Domain Names resolve to webpages offering the Domain Names for sale. This is not a bona fide use of the Domain Names.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence, the Panel finds it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Names. The Complainant’s applications for EU trademarks were made public the same as the Domain Names were registered.
Moreover, the Respondent has offered the Domain Names for sale for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs, and the Respondent has not provided any evidence of good faith use, nor a reasonable explanation for the registrations.
For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Names were registered and are 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 Names, , , , and be transferred to the Complainant.
Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: October 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy