Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0156488856, Canada / Junior Natabou, Electrolux TM, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 13, 2020. On January 13, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on January 15, 2020 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 January 15, 2020. 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 January 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 7, 2020. The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 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 AB Electrolux is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world's leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products. Having started out with the sale of a single vacuum cleaner, after 90 years of innovations and acquisitions, Electrolux is now a global leader in home and professional appliances. The ELECTROLUX brand is Complainant’s flagship brand for kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users. In 2018 Electrolux had sales of SEK 124 billion and about 54,000 employees (“https://www.electroluxgroup.com/en/wpcontent/ uploads/sites/2/2019/02/electrolux-annual-report-2018.pdf”). Complainant is the owner of the registered well-known trademark ELECTROLUX as a word and figure mark in several classes in more than 150 countries all over the world including in Canada (see examples of registered trademarks below). Trademark registrations include, but are not limited to: Trademark Reg. No. Date of Registration ELECTROLUX TMA743199 2009-07-09 ELECTROLUX TMA733085 2009-01-23 ELECTROLUX TMA603018 2004-02-24 Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLD") and country-code Top-Level Domains ("ccTLD") containing the terms “Electrolux,” for example The disputed domain name was registered on December 17, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known ELECTROLUX marks because it entirely incorporates Complainant’s marks. The disputed domain name also contains a hyphen and the country identifier “fr” for France. The addition of generic terms or dashes does not differentiate the domain names from the registered trademarks. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services. It is clear that the intention of the disputed domain name registration is to take advantage of the internet traffic generated due to the incorporation of the well-known ELECTROLUX trademarks in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registrations of the disputed domain name and therefore it seems highly unlikely that Respondent was not aware of the existence of the trademarks and the unlawfulness of the registration of the disputed domain name. Moreover, Respondent has failed to respond to the communication attempts made by Complainant, which should also be considered an indication of a bad faith registration. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s well-known ELECTROLUX mark because it contains the entirety of Complainant’s mark with the addition of “-fr” and the generic gTLD “.com”. Numerous UDRP panels deciding cases under the Policy have held that the incorporation of a complainant’s well-known mark in full in a disputed domain name is a compelling factor in favor of a finding of confusing similarity, and that addition of other terms (in this case a term associated with the mark) does not alleviate such confusion. See National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin’ Connection, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1524. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that Respondent does not have license, permission, or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence demonstrating a bona fide offering of goods or services by Respondent. Complainant provided evidence that Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to its Website where it claims to be selling robot vacuums produced by the Complainant, but that are in fact from a different brand. Respondent’s failure to respond to Complaint, coupled with Complainant’s contentions, are indicative that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Respondent’s conduct in this case demonstrates bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registrations of the disputed Domain Name. Given the long use and fame of Complainant’s ELECTROLUX marks, Respondent clearly knew or should have known of the ELECTROLUX mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was appropriated by Respondent in bad faith. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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, Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: February 25, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy