The Complainant is Kravet, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by SafeNames Ltd., United Kingdom.
The Respondent is James H Park, JIN-1, Republic of Korea. 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 24, 2020. On March 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 25, 2020, 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 March 27, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 16, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 17, 2020. The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on April 28, 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, established in 1918, is active in the field of home furnishings and distributes fabrics, furniture, wall coverings, trimmings, and related accessories. The disputed domain name was registered on February 15, 2017. The language of the registration agreement at the time of registration was English. The Complaint is based, amongst others, on the following word trademarks, applied for before the date of registration of the disputed domain name and consisting of the term KRAVET, e.g., United States trademark No. 1240403 (registered on May 31, 1983, for goods in class 24) and European Union Trade Mark No. 002980522 (registered on June 9, 2004, for goods in classes 20, 24, and 26). It results from the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a website hosting a parked page which advertises pay-per-click (“PPC”) links reflecting various business activities many of which compete with the Complainant such as, for instance, “fabric sofa”, “curtains”, and “designer furniture”. In addition, the disputed domain name is listed for sale for a price of USD 2,800. Finally, the Complainant sent an initial cease and desist letter to the Respondent on March 2, 2020, and a follow-up notice on March 10, 2020. The Respondent did not reply on either occasion. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark KRAVET, since it incorporates the KRAVET trademark in its entirety, without the addition or rearrangement of any other characters. Secondly, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which comprise part or the entirety of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known as “kravet”. Furthermore, the Complainant has not licensed the Respondent to use the KRAVET marks as part of the disputed domain name. Finally, the Respondent’s only use of the disputed domain name is in connection with a parking website which demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate interest. Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under several aspects, in particular by offering the disputed domain name for a price of USD 2,800 which is clearly in excess of its domain registration costs; by attempting to derive a commercial gain from consumer confusion, and by engaging in a pattern of registering trademark-abusive domain names being listed as a respondent in at least 13 previous UDRP disputes. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to “decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will therefore proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must first of all establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations consisting of the verbal element KRAVET, in particular United States trademark No. 1240403 (registered on May 31, 1983, for goods in class 24) and European Union Trade Mark No. 002980522 (registered on June 9, 2004, for goods in classes 20, 24, and 26). Many UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where it incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (e.g., “Dr. Martens” International Trading GmbH and “Dr. Maertens” Marketing GmbH v. Elliot Elliot,WIPO Case No. D2018-0213; F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Jason Barnes, ecnopt,WIPO Case No. D2015-1305; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Christian Viola,WIPO Case No. D2012-2102; Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack,WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Oxford v. Oxford College for PhD Studies,WIPO Case No. D2015-0812; Rhino Entertainment Company v. DomainSource.com, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0968; SurePayroll, Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates,WIPO Case No. D2007-0464). This Panel shares this view and notes that the registered trademark KRAVET is fully included in the disputed domain name without the addition or rearrangement of any other characters. Consequently, there is identity or at least confusing similarity between the trademarks KRAVET and the disputed domain name. In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. First, it results from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the disputed domain name is currently connected to a website displaying sponsored links amongst others for the Complainant’s competitors. This Panel shares the view of previous UDRP panels holding that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering (pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy) where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)), as it is the case here. Second, the Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record showing could lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. In addition, it results from the Complainant’s uncontested evidence that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant who has not granted the Respondent any license or consent, express or implied, to use the Complainant’s trademark in domain names or in any other manner. Finally, use of the disputed domain name for a parking page with commercial links excludes any noncommercial use in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy from the outset. It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case has been established, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant is therefore deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith. One of these circumstances is that the respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy). It is the view of this Panel that the Respondent has actually registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it either to the Complainant or to third persons for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name. It results from the Complainant’s undisputed and documented allegations the Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale for an amount of USD 2,800. This Panel finds that such requested price is clearly in excess of any out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name (see Vestopazzo s.r.l. v. This domain name is for sale, Shanshan Huang,WIPO Case No. D2019-3176; Linatex Limited v. Yunkook Jung,WIPO Case No. D2019-1784; T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,WIPO Case No. D2019-1955). In addition, this finding of bad faith registration and use is further supported by the further circumstances resulting from the case at hand, which are the following: (i) the Respondent’s failure to reply to the two pre-litigation cease and desist letters presenting a conceivable explanation of its behavior; (ii) the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use; (iii) the creation of a domain name which exactly contains the trademark KRAVET which indicates an intention on the part of the Respondent to confuse users; (v) the Respondent having previously registered many domain names comprising well-known international trademarks; and (vi) the disputed domain name resolving to a parking page with PPC links (see section 3.5 of WIPO Overview 3.0). In the light of the above the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to 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 Tobias Malte Müller
Sole Panelist
Date: May 12, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy