The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is 刘国强 (Guo Qiang Liu), China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint in English was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2021. On December 23, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 24, 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 December 27, 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 in English on December 27, 2021.
On December 27, 2021, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on December 27, 2021. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2022. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2022.
The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on February 4, 2022. 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 is a multinational company headquartered in Sweden and is active in the consumer electronics industry. The Complainant uses the AEG trademarks for a wide range of its products, including electrical power generation and transmission products and home appliances, and distributes these products on a worldwide basis, including in the Respondent’s jurisdiction China. The Complainant particularly commercializes a line of uninterruptible power supply (“UPS”) systems under the trade name “Protect”.
The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations for AEG, and provides evidence of registration for international trademark registration number 802025 registered on December 18, 2002, designating, inter alia, China; and for international trademark registration number 822564 registered on October 29, 2003, designating, inter alia, China. The Complainant also owns a portfolio of official domain names, including
The Complainant submits evidence proving that the disputed domain name directs to an active website displaying the AEG trademark, containing marketing materials and also offering for sale a number of UPS products as well as offering related services.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant essentially contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademarks for AEG, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered, and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant claims that its trademarks are distinctive and famous, and submits a number of its marketing materials, online trademark searches and online search engine results. The Complainant particularly contends that that there are no justifications for the use of its trademarks in the disputed domain name, and claims that the Respondent is misleading internet users to the website linked to the disputed domain name, for commercial gain, in order to attract them to its own products and services. The Complainant argues that such use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights in the disputed domain name to the Respondent and constitutes registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.
On the basis of the above arguments, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Preliminary Issue: Language of the ProceedingPursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.
According to the Registrar’s verification response, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Nevertheless, the Complainant filed its Complaint and its amendment to the Complaint in English, and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Panel notes that the Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding and did not submit any arguments on the merits of this proceeding.
The Panel has carefully considered all elements of this case in considering this request, and attaches particular relevance to the following elements: the Complainant’s request that the language of the proceeding be English; the lack of comment on the language of the proceeding and the lack of response on the merits of this case by the Respondent (the Panel notes that the Respondent was timely invited by the Center in Chinese and English to provide its response in either English or Chinese); the fact that the disputed domain name is a combination of the Complainant’s trademark with the word “protect” written in English rather than in Chinese; the fact that the website linked to the disputed domain name contains a number of English words; and the fact that Chinese as the language of the proceeding could lead to unwarranted delays and additional costs for the Complainant. In view of all these elements, the Panel grants the Complainant’s request, and decides that the language of this administrative proceeding shall be English.
6.2. Discussion and Findings on the MeritsThe Policy requires the Complainant to prove three elements:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(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.
Based on the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel’s findings are as follows:
A. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence that it has valid rights in the mark AEG, based on its registration and use of the same as a registered trademark.
Moreover, as to confusing similarity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark, the disputed domain name consists of the combination of two elements, which are the Complainant’s AEG trademark and the term “protect”. According to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the “WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8, “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name contains the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark, as its sole distinctive and dominant feature, and that the addition of the term “protect” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel also finds that the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (“.com” in this proceeding) is viewed as a standard registration requirement, and may as such be disregarded by the Panel, see in this regard the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks, and the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the first element under the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsOn the basis of the evidence and arguments submitted, the Panel finds that the Complainant makes out a prima facie case that that the Respondent is not, and has never been, an authorized reseller, service provider, licensee or distributor of the Complainant, is not a good faith provider of goods or services under the disputed domain name and is not making a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that the burden of production regarding this element shifts to the Respondent (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). However, the Respondent did not provide any Response or evidence in this administrative proceeding.
On review of the facts, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name directs to an active website, clearly and prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark AEG and using the Complainant’s own product images presumably protected by copyright, without authorization by the Complainant. Such website contains marketing materials and also offers for sale a number of UPS products and offers related services. The Panel also notes that such website does not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent or contains any other elements pointing to the Respondent’s good faith. Instead, the Panel finds that the Respondent is deliberately using the Complainant’s marks in the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to such website for the Respondent’s commercial purposes (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.3). The Panel concludes that such use does not confer any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name on the Respondent.
Furthermore, the Panel also finds that the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s trademark AEG in its entirety plus an additional term “protect” related to the Complainant’s products, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use, as it effectively impersonates the Complainant (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1).
On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel considers that none of the circumstances of rights or legitimate interests envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the second element under the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name was clearly intended to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s widely-known trademarks for AEG, by using such mark in its entirety in the disputed domain name to mislead and divert Internet users to the website hosted at the disputed domain name. The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be so closely linked and so obviously connected to the Complainant and its trademark (by suggesting to host the website for the Complainant’s Protect line of AEG-branded products) that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name persuasively points toward the Respondent’s bad faith. Moreover, given the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks for AEG, the Panel finds that the registration of the disputed domain name clearly targeted such trademarks, and that the Respondent therefore knew, or at least should have known, of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks. This has been reinforced by the fact that the addition of the term “protect” in the disputed domain name directly relates to the Complainant’s business. In the Panel’s view, the preceding elements clearly establish the bad faith of the Respondent in registering the disputed domain name.
As to use of the disputed domain name in bad faith, the disputed domain name directs to an active website displaying the Complainant’s AEG trademark, containing marketing materials and also offering for sale a number of UPS products as well as offering related services to Internet users for commercial gain. The Panel therefore considers that the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users and attract them to the website linked to the disputed domain name for commercial gain, enabling the Respondent to provide such Internet users with its own products and services. The Panel accepts that this constitutes direct evidence of bad faith under paragraph 4 (b)(iv) of the Policy. On the basis of the foregoing, the Panel finds that it has been demonstrated that the Respondent has used, and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Finally, the Respondent has failed to provide any response or evidence to establish its good faith or absence of bad faith. The Panel therefore rules that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of the third element under the Policy.
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,
Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: February 15, 2022