The Complainant is Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V., Netherlands, represented by Ploum, Netherlands.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0156358211, Canada / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 13, 2020. On March 16, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 16, 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 March 21, 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 23, 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 24, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2020. The Center appointed Clive Duncan Thorne as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 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, Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V., is part of the Jacobs Douwe Egberts group. Jacobs Douwe Egberts which is known by the abbreviated name, JDE, was formed in 2015 by the merger of D.E Master Blenders, founded in 1753, and the coffee division of Mondelez International. JDE is an international tea and coffee company, headquartered in the Netherlands that processes and trades in coffee, tea and other foods and has done since 1753. The trademark JDE is used as an umbrella brand in relation to the Complainant’s tea and coffee portfolio which includes many well-known household names including: Jacobs, Tassimo, Moccona, Senseo, L’OR, Douwe Egberts, TiÓra, Super, Kenco, Pilao & Gevalia. All product packages of these household names include both the household trademark and the JDE trademark. Today the Complainant’s coffee and tea portfolios are available in over 100 countries around the world. The Complainant owns and operates websites using numerous domain names incorporating the JDE and the JACOBS DOUWE EGBERTS trade marks including: For many years, Complainant has been the owner of a large number of trade mark registrations worldwide, including in several European countries, consisting of or including the element JDE. The Complainant refers to: - Benelux mark registration No. 0970216 JDE registered in 2015; - International registration No. 1248744 JDE registered in 2015 designating, inter alia, Australia, European Union and United States of America. The Complainant exhibits at Annex 5 to the Complaint, copies of the above registrations and an overview of all its registrations for the mark JDE. The mark JDE is registered for and is being used in classes 5, 7, 11, 16, 21, 29, 30, 32, 35 and 43 for, inter alia, coffee and coffee and tea makers. The disputed domain name was registered in November 2019, which is after the date of registration of the Complainant’s trade mark registrations that it relies upon. The Respondent, which has not filed a Response is unknown to the Complainant and nothing is known about its use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website, which displays links related to the Complainant’s business. In the absence of a Response the Panel finds the above evidence adduced by the Complainant to be true and proceeds to determine this Complaint accordingly. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits: (i) that it is the registered owner of trade mark rights in the mark JDE predating the date of registration of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark JDE; (ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; (iii) on the evidence the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Taking into account the evidence of the Complainant’s trade mark rights set out in Section 4 above the Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trade mark rights in the mark JDE in a number of jurisdictions worldwide. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark JDE as it incorporates the mark in its entirety as the first three letters of the domain name. The next five letters consist of the word “coffe”, i.e., the same word as the product “coffee” (marketed by the Complainant) less the last letter “e”. The use of “coffe” in this context is purely descriptive of the product. The Complainant submits that the misspelling of “coffee” as “coffe” is “very obvious”, i.e., intentional and it is clear that the Respondent meant it to be a reference to “coffee”. The Panel accepts this submission and finds “coffe” to be descriptive of “coffee” which is “the key product for which the mark JDE is registered, used and well-known for”. The relevant trade mark JDE is therefore recognizable within the disputed domain name. There is well-stablished authority that the fact that a domain name wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered mark is sufficient to establish confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy. In a previous UDRP panel decision involving similar facts, Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. v. Mrel Hover,WIPO Case No. D2019-2013, confusing similarity was found where the disputed domain name reproduced the mark JDE in its entirety together with the term “c0ffee”. This Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name < The Complainant submits on the available evidence the Respondent is not in any form commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no connection between the Parties and the Complainant did not authorize the Respondent to use the mark JDE in anyway whatsoever. Annex 9 exhibited to the Complaint shows the Respondent’s website resolving from the disputed domain name uses pay-per-click advertisements that relate to coffee. The links also redirect to the webpages of other companies and businesses. It is therefore apparent that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel accepts these submissions on the basis that there is no contrary evidence adduced by the Respondent and that accordingly the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name within paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant submits that this issue is “beyond doubt and self-explanatory”. The fact that the mark JDE is well known worldwide and is distinctive and there are “great similarities” between the mark and the disputed domain name means that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its mark JDE. It would be too much of a coincidence for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name incorporating the letters “j”, “d” and “e” without being aware of the trade mark. This argument is strengthened by the addition of “coffe” to the disputed domain name which is an obvious misspelling of “coffee” for which the Complainant is very well known and for which the trade mark is registered. The Complainant argues that it is “highly plausible” that the Respondent will have registered the disputed domain name for phishing purposes and/or to create a website to attract Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the JDE trade mark and the Complainant. There is a risk that the disputed domain name will be used for fraudulent activities by the Respondent. That and the real risk and likelihood of confusion with the Complainant shows that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods and/or services. The Complainant also submits that the use by the Respondent of a “privacy service” to mask the information in the WhoIs database is also an indication of use in bad faith. This is shown by the earlier UDRP panel decision in Primonial v. Domain Administrator, Privacy Guardian.org/ Parla Turkmenoglu,WIPO Case No. D2019-0193. In the absence of a Response the Panel accepts the force of these submissions. It is particularly taken by the absence of any credible explanation as to why the Respondent combined the Complainant’s well-known mark JDE with a deliberate misspelling version of “coffee”, i.e., “coffe” which is nevertheless recognizable as a reference to “coffee”, a product for which the Complainant is very well known. In addition, as described above, the disputed domain name resolves to a pay-per-click website, displaying advertisements that relate to coffee. The links also redirect to the webpages of other companies and businesses. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name 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 Clive Duncan Thorne
Sole Panelist
Date: May 18, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy