Complainant is TIM Varumärke AB (Now Eniro Brands AB), Sweden, Eniro AB, Eniro Norge AS (Now Gule Sider AS), Norway, Eniro Danmark A/S (Now Krak A/S), Denmark, represented by Baker & McKenzie Advokatbyrå KB, Sweden.
Respondent is Jan Grietje, EU Internet Service, Netherlands. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 7, 2020. On October 7, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On October 8, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on October 12, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 12, 2020. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 October 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 12, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on November 13, 2020. Complainant owns the trademarks for “one of the oldest digital phone books and largest online databases for company information such as addresses and phone numbers in Sweden, Norway and Denmark.” Complainant holds various trademark registrations, including Norwegian Reg. No. 236054 for GULE SIDER (registered on November 2, 2006) and Danish Reg. No. VR 1997 02567 for DE GULE SIDER (registered on June 20, 1997). The Domain Names were registered on June 5 and 9, 2020. According to Complainant, it has received customer complaints indicating that “Respondent is fraudulently attempting to receive payments” from Complainant’s customers. Complainant asserts that Respondent has never had a relationship with Complainant, and that Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use the DE GULE SIDER or GULE SIDER marks in a domain name or otherwise. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under 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 each of the Domain Names: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (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 The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the trademarks GULE SIDER and DE GULE SIDER through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also concludes that the Domain Names are identical to those marks. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i) B. Rights or Legitimate Interests For each of the Domain Names, 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 Names. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to articulate or prove his bona fides vis-à-vis the Domain Names. On the record before the Panel, it is undisputed that Complainant has had no relationship with Respondent, and has never authorized Respondent to use its trademarks in a domain name or otherwise. It is also alleged, and not disputed by Respondent, that Respondent has been using the Domain Names in order to perpetrate a fraud upon Complainant’s customers by impersonating Complainant and seeking payment from the customers. The failure to deny such a serious charge invites the reasonable conclusion that the charge is probably true. Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii). C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith For each of the Domain Names, 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 registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith. As noted above, it has been alleged, and not disputed, that Respondent has tried to pass himself off as Complainant, and has sought to extract fraudulent payments from Complainant’s actual customers. Such conduct is clear bad faith within the meaning of Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), quoted above. 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 Names Robert A. Badgley
The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on November 18, 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
Sole Panelist
Date: November 22, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy