Complainant is Finn No AS, Norway, represented by Bryn Aarflot AS, Norway.
Respondent is Sandra Holma, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 6, 2019. On December 6, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On December 7, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on December 20, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on December 20, 2019. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 16, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on January 17, 2020. The Center appointed Marina Perraki as the sole panelist in this matter on January 30, 2020. 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 Per Complaint, Complainant maintains Norway’s biggest online marketplace, operating at “www.finn.no”. In January 2019, Complainant’s website had more than 100 million visits and more than 6.4 million unique visitors per week. Complainant’s operating revenue in 2018 was NOK 1,762,692,000. Complainant has been offering its services on the Norwegian market under the FINN brand since 2000. Per Complaint, Complainant is part of Schibsted ASA/Schibsted Media Group (“Schibsted”), Scandinavia’s largest media group. Schibsted has more than 5,000 employees in 22 countries. Per Complainant, both FINN brand and SCHIBSTED, are well-known in the Norwegian market. Complainant owns trademark registrations for FINN, including the Norwegian trademark registration No. 192448, filed on February 4, 1998 and registered on August 27, 1998, for goods and services in International classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42. The Domain Name was registered on August 20, 2019 and resolves to an inactive web page. Furthermore, per Complainant, six sub-domains have been created in association with the Domain Name, namely On September 16, 2019, Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to which Respondent did not reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant asserts that it has established all three elements required under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and The Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s trademark FINN in its entirety. This is sufficient to establish confusing similarity (Magnum Piering, Inc. v. The Mudjackers and Garwood S. Wilson, Sr.,WIPO Case No. D2000-1525). The word “schibsted” is the name of the parent company of Complainant and the word “authn” is an abbreviation of the word “authentic” and therefore non distinctive. The addition of the words “schibsted” and “authn” and the hyphens between these words, do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity, as Complainant’s trademark is recognizable within the Domain Name (see Accenture Global Services Limited v. Jean Jacque / Luck Loic,WIPO Case No. D2016-1315; Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co LLP v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy LLC / Ian Piggin,WIPO Case No. D2015-0135; and WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8). Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8). The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is also disregarded, as gTLDs typically do not form part of the comparison on the grounds that they are required for technical reasons (see Rexel Developpements SAS v. Zhan Yequn,WIPO Case No. D2017-0275; Hay & Robertson International Licensing AG v. C. J. Lovik,WIPO Case No. D2002-0122). The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the FINN mark of Complainant. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements: (i) before any notice to you [Respondent] 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 [Respondent] (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 [Respondent] 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 Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not submitted any response and has not claimed any such rights or legitimate interests with respect to the Domain Name. As per Complaint, Respondent was not authorized to register the Domain Name. Respondent did not demonstrate, prior to the notice of the dispute, any use of the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, as Complainant demonstrates, the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. The Panel finds that these circumstances do not confer upon Respondent any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or (ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location. The Panel concludes that Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. As per Complaint, Complainant’s FINN trademark is well-known in the field of online marketplace. Because the FINN mark had been widely used and registered at the time of the Domain Name registration, the Panel finds it more likely than not that Respondent had Complainant’s mark in mind when registering this Domain Name. Respondent should have known about Complainant’s rights, due to the fact that Complainant’s mark had goodwill and reputation when the Domain Name was registered. Furthermore, such knowledge is readily obtainable through a simple browser search due to Complainant’s use of FINN mark on the Internet (“www.finn.no”) (Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC,WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Compart AG v. Compart.com / Vertical Axis, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0462). This also in view of the nature of Complainant’s services, namely an online marketplace. Furthermore, the Domain Name incorporates the name of Complainant’s parent company, Schibsted, which further shows that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant and its business. As regards bad faith use, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name leads to an inactive website. The non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). The Panel considers the following factors: (i) the reputation of Complainant’s mark, which has been repeatedly recognized (in, inter alia, Finn. no AS v. Finn Bedrift,WIPO Case No. D2013-0991, and Finn.No As v. Janis Briedis,WIPO Case No. D2015-1043), (ii) the failure of Respondent to submit a response, and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Domain Name may conceivably be put, given that as Complainant has demonstrated, the corresponding website is inactive. Under these circumstances and on this record, the Panel finds no good-faith basis for Respondent’s conduct vis-à-vis the Domain Name. Complainant has established Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii). 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 Marina Perraki
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: February 13, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy