The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Michael Anderson, Fortune Johnson General Contractors, United States of America (“United States” or “US”).
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 31, 2021. On August 31, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 31, 2021, 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 September 2, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 22, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 27, 2021.
The Center appointed Miguel B. O'Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on October 7, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant, AB Electrolux, is a Swedish company formed in 1901 that produces appliances and equipment for kitchen, cleaning and floor care products. The ELECTROLUX brand is the flagship brand for kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users.
The Complainant is the owner of national and international trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX as a word and figure mark in several classes in more than 150 countries, including the United States where the Respondent is located, such as the following:
United States Trademark Registration No. 0562427 ELECTROLUX, registered on July, 29, 1952 in international class 037 and US class 103.
United States Trademark Registration No. 0248774 ELECTROLUX, registered on October 30, 1928 in international class 011 and US class 031.
The Complainant also owns several domain names containing the term “electrolux” registered under the generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) and country-code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLD”). The Complainant uses the domain name
The disputed domain name
The Complainant claims to sell approximately 60 million household products in approximately 120 markets every year. In 2020 the Complainant had about 55,000 employees, and its sales amounted to USD 14.15 billion.
The Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark ELECTROLUX in which the Complainant has rights; and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.
The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to deceitfully send emails from an email address consisting of the disputed domain name, which are intended to give the recipient the wrongful impression that the emails are sent from the Complainant and extract sensitive information from the recipients of the emails.
The original scam emails have not been provided at the time of filing the Complaint but given the sensitive and urgent nature of this case, the Complainant decided to pursue without those emails. The Complainant’s own IT team has reported the scam to the registrar and the Complainant is waiting for confirmation on suspension of the disputed domain name. The emails were allegedly sent from a fake email address comprising the name of an employee working for the Complainant.
Finally, the Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision ordering that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsAccording to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has proved that it has rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
As set forth in section 1.7 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) the standing test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name to determine whether the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the trademark. The test involves a side-by-side comparison of the disputed domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX mark, in which the letter “l” has been replaced by the letter “i”. Thus, the disputed domain name
As is a common practice in these cases, the Panel shall disregard the gTLD “.com” in the test for determining confusing similarity under the first element since it is viewed as a standard registration requirement.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark and that the conditions of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsPursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s 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) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers.
Although the Policy addresses ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name, it is well established, as it is put in section 2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0, that a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.
As sustained by the Complainant, there is no evidence in the present case that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, enabling it to establish rights or legitimate interests therein. The name of the Respondent does not resemble the disputed domain name in any manner.
Furthermore, there is no evidence in the file to prove any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, nor any other element to prove that the Respondent has legitimate interests or that it has established rights in the disputed domain name.
Likewise, and as further discussed under section 6.C of this decision, it does not seem that the Respondent is making any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name – which is almost identical and confusingly similar with the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark – but rather that it intends to use the disputed domain name for the purpose of deriving unfair monitory advantage by confusing Internet users.
As established in section 2.5 of WIPO Overview 3.0: “Fundamentally, a respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered ‘fair’ if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is often central to this inquiry”. There is no doubt that in this case the disputed domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant´s well known trademark ELECTROLUX.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case, a case calling for an answer from the Respondent. The Respondent has not responded and the Panel is unable to conceive of any basis upon which the Respondent could sensibly be said to have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (Telstra Corporation Limited. v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).
The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been fulfilled.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s business and its ELECTROLUX mark, which had been used and registered in many jurisdictions, including the United States where the Respondent seems to be located, long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on July 4, 2021.
The Respondent when registering the disputed domain name has targeted the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX with a slight misspelling which is known as “typosquatting”, with the intention to confuse Internet users and capitalize on the fame of the Complainant’s trademark for its own monetary benefit.
The relevant part of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that “the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: [...] (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The fact that there is a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name is also a significant factor to consider that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith (as stated in section 3.2.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0).
Furthermore, the Panel considers that more likely than not, and despite that the Complainant has not filed the original scam emails, the Respondent has sent the alleged fraudulent emails using the disputed domain name and the name of the Complainant’s employee to deceitfully give the recipients the wrongful impression that they were sent from the Complainant to extract sensitive information.
The disputed domain name is associated with mail servers (MX severs) that enable the Respondent to use it for creating and using email addresses composed with @electroiux.com, as shown in Annex 8 to the Complaint.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith, and thus the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been fulfilled.
7. DecisionFor 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
Miguel B. O'Farrell
Sole Panelist
Date: October 21, 2021