The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0153947743, Canada / Fortune Addrah, Electrolux Global Services, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 27, 2020. On February 27, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 27, 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 the Complainant on February 28, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on March 3, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 26, 2020. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on April 17, 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 The Complainant is AB Electrolux, 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 as well as floor care products. The Complainant is a global leader in home and professional appliances and its flagship mark is ELECTROLUX. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the trademark ELECTROLUX in more than 150 countries, including Canada where the Respondent is located, such as the following: - Canadian trademark registration TMA743199 for ELECTROLUX registered on July 9, 2009 in class 11; - Canadian trademark registration TMA733085 for ELECTROLUX registered on January 23, 2009, in class 7; and - Canadian trademark registration TMA 603018 for ELECTROLUX registered on February 24, 2004 in classes 4, 7, and 11. The Complainant is also the owner of a number of different domain names containing its well-known trademark ELECTROLUX, namely The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2019 and does not resolve to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it owns trademark registrations in several jurisdictions for the trademark ELECTROLUX as well as registrations for many domain names comprising the trademark ELECTROLUX, such as According to the Complainant, the Respondent has intentionally selected specific words in the disputed domain name which are directly related to the Complainant’s activity (“service”) and territorial impact (“global”) to lead consumers to think that the disputed domain name belongs or is related to the Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant says that the addition of the mentioned words are insufficient to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity with the Complainant’s trademarks. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not authorized to register or use the disputed domain name and has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it has not acquired any trademark rights related to the disputed domain name. In addition, the Complainant argues that it is impossible to say that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and the famous ELECTROLUX trademarks and that the intention by registering the disputed domain name was to prevent the Complainant from exercising its legitimate rights over the well-known trademark ELECTROLUX. The Complainant adds that the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and shows evidence that there was a Facebook page owned by the Respondent which included the disputed domain name. On January 13, 2020 the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent seeking a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain name, but the letter was ignored. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The evidence presented demonstrates that the Complainant has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX. The ELECTROLUX trademark registrations predate the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Complainant has trademark rights for purposes of the Policy. The disputed domain name comprises the trademark ELECTROLUX in its entirety. Indeed, the addition of the dictionary words “global” and “services” does not avoid confusion between the disputed domain name and the trademark. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) It is the general view among UDRP panels that the addition of merely dictionary, descriptive or geographical words to a trademark in a domain name is normally insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP (for example, Ansell Healthcare Products Inc. v. Australian Therapeutics Supplies Pty, Ltd,WIPO Case No. D2001-0110). Also, as numerous prior UDRP panels have already recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the ELECTROLUX trademarks or to register domain names containing the trademark ELECTROLUX. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (see World Natural Bodybuilding Federation, Inc. v. Daniel Jones TheDotCafe,WIPO Case No. D2008-0642). There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Based on the evidence in the Complaint, the Panel finds that the use of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the ELECTROLUX trademarks, does not correspond to a bona fide use of domain names under the Policy. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e. the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The well-known trademark ELECTROLUX is registered in several countries, including Canada where the Respondent is located and has been used for a long time around the world. The disputed domain name is comprised by the trademark ELECTROLUX in its entirety and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The ELECTROLUX mark is very distinctive and is considered a highly reputed trademark worldwide. Thus, a domain name that comprises such a well-known mark is undoubtedly suggestive of the registrant’s bad faith. See Veuve Clicquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0163. In addition, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name includes the descriptive term “services” and the geographic indicator “global”, which in this case may serve as additional evidence of the registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith, considering that the Complainant offers technical assistance in connection with its products and has a global presence. Although the disputed domain name does not actually resolve to an active website, this non-use would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. The Complaint demonstrates that there is no other reason for the use and registration of the disputed domain name than to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks, with the intent to deceive Internet users. The Respondent obviously knew of the Complainant’s mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complainant’s allegations. According to the panel’s decision in The Argento Wine Company Limited v. Argento Beijing Trading Company,WIPO Case No. D2009-0610, “[t]he failure of the Respondent to respond to the Complaint further supports an inference of bad faith”. This Panel finds that the Respondent’s intention of taking undue advantage of the trademark ELECTROLUX as described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy has been demonstrated. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: April 30, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy