The Complainant is Blocket AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc., Panama / Fdsfdsjf Fdsfdfds, Russian Federation. 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 22, 2021. On February 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 22, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the 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 23, 2021, 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 February 23, 2021. 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 February 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 16, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 17, 2021. The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 2021. 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 was founded in 1996 and is today a leading online buy-sell marketplace in Sweden with 5 million unique visitors per week. Different versions of the Complainant’s marketplace are now available in several countries and 8 out of 10 Swedes has bought or sold something at the Complainant’s marketplace. The Complainant has registered the trademark BLOCKET in Sweden such as reg. no. 375226 BLOCKET registered on September 30, 2005. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name The Domain Name was registered on February 13, 2021. At the time of the Complaint, the Domain Name redirected to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) advertising page with commercial links similar to the Complainant’s services. At the time of drafting the Decision, the Domain Name redirected to an error webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant provides evidence of its trademark registrations and argues that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not authorized to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is well known and recognized, there can be no legitimate use by the Respondent. The Respondent has no bona fide use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Domain Name redirected to a PPC advertising page that contains commercial links similar to the Complainant’s services. The arrangement between the Respondent and its domain name parking host involves a dynamic monetization scheme by which that host and the Respondent share in the fees generated each time an Internet user is redirected. The Complainant argues that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to profit off the Complainant’s intended Internet traffic through the monetization scheme indicates bad faith intent and use. The Respondent has employed a privacy service to hide its identity. This supports an inference of bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, the name listed at the privacy service, “Fdsfdsjf Fdsfdfds” is most likely fake. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the trademark BLOCKET. The Domain Name is identical to the trademark. For the purpose of assessing under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel may ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.store”; see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register the Domain Name containing the Complainant’s trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. The Respondent cannot establish rights in the Domain Name, as it has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering. On the contrary, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name to create a PPC-revenue stream is rather evidence of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s well-known trademark. The Panel finds it more likely than not that the Respondent knew of the Complainant when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The fact that the Domain Name currently redirects to an error webpage does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service and the underlying use of what appears to be a fake name, is further indication of bad faith. For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of 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 Domain Name Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 31, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy