The Complainant is Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V., Netherlands, represented by Ploum, Netherlands.
The Respondent is Aniket Bansode, Vanmala, India. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2021. On May 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 1, 2021, 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 June 1, 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 June 1, 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 June 9, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 29, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 2, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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 is a private limited company organized under the laws of the Netherlands. It is a supplier of tea, coffee and other foods products and offers a coffee machine and pod system under the brand name and trademark SENSEO. The Complainant is the owner of registrations for the trademark SENSEO, including International Trademark number 716530 for the word mark SENSEO, registered on June 25, 1999 in International Classes 9, 11 and 30, as well as other International, European Union, and United States of America registrations for the mark. The Complainant operates a number of national websites to promote its SENSEO brand, linked to domain names including The disputed domain name The disputed domain name has resolved to a website containing what appear to be sponsored links to coffee-related products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that its portfolio of tea and coffee products, including its SENSEO system, are sold in over 100 countries worldwide. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to its SENSEO trademark. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its SENSEO trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the primary purpose of selling it to the Complainant for an inflated price. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant states that the Respondent cannot have arrived at the name SENSEO by coincidence. The Complainant exhibits an email from the Respondent, sent on the same day it registered the disputed domain name, offering to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Complainant also exhibits a screenshot from Sedo.com indicating a price of USD 6,111 for the disputed domain name. 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 In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the name and mark SENSEO. The disputed domain name is identical to that trademark, ignoring the Top-Level Domain “.asia”, which is to be disregarded for the purposes of comparison. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds the Complainant’s trademark SENSEO to be distinctive in nature and that the Respondent clearly had that trademark in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel accepts the Complainant’s evidence, which the Respondent has not disputed, that the Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to the Complainant on the same date that it registered the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name has been offered at a price of USD 6,111. The Panel finds in the circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, who is the owner of the corresponding trademark, for valuable consideration likely 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). Furthermore, the disputed domain name has resolved to a website containing what appear to be sponsored links to coffee-related products. This is further evidence of bad faith (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel therefore finds that 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, Steven A. Maier
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Sole Panelist
Date: July 26, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy