ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Autoliv Development AB. v. Gideon johnson, farmtech Case No. D2024-4015 1. The Parties The Complainant is Autoliv Development AB, Sweden, represented by Brimondo AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Gideon johnson, farmtech, Nigeria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name
is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount-Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2024. On September 30, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 2, 2024, 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 October 3, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 23, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 20, 2024. The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on November 7, 2024. 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.
page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant, founded in 1997, develops and manufactures automotive safety products, including airbags, seatbelts, and steering wheels, which it sells to major car manufacturers in 25 countries. It is a Fortune 500 company with its shares listed on the New York Stock Exchange, amongst others. The Complainant owns various domain names comprising its mark, including which was registered in 1998 and from which the Complainant operates its primary website The Complainant owns trademark registrations for its mark in numerous jurisdictions, including United States Trademark Registration No. 75361776 AUTOLIV in classes 9 and 12, having a registration date of January 18, 2000. The disputed domain name was registered on February 6, 2024, and currently does not resolve to any website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant’s mark and has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith in order to take advantage of the mark’s reputation. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The disputed domain name is nearly identical to the mark apart from incorporating an additional letter “i”. A domain name which consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trademark, as in this case, is considered by UDRP panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.9. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 3 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. For the reasons discussed in relation to bad faith below, it is likely that the disputed domain name has been registered for phishing, spam or other malicious purposes. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. For the following reasons, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name to take advantage of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for the Respondent’s commercial gain, falling squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that its mark was well known long prior to registration of the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently found that registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos, as in this case) to a famous or well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. The Complainant’s well-known AUTOLIV mark has no generic or descriptive meaning that the Respondent might in good faith have sought to adopt, and the mark is highly specific to the Complainant. Internet searches for the Complainant’s mark as well as for the second-level portion of the disputed domain name return results overwhelmingly relating to the Complainant. The disputed domain name is almost identical to the Complainant’s well-known mark. It is therefore difficult to conceive of any good faith use of the disputed domain name. This indicates bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Mail exchange (“MX”) records are set for the disputed domain name, enabling use for email. This raises the risk of email-based fraud. Statoil ASA v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Eldar Saetre, WIPO Case No. D2018-0563. The Panel has independently established that at least three security vendors have
page 4 flagged the disputed domain name for phishing, spam and other malicious activity, which is a clear indicator of bad faith. The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Hoshyar Marshall, WIPO Case No. D2021-0344. The Complainant’s evidence establishes that the Respondent has in the past registered domain names that appear to be typosquatting variants of well-known brands as in this case, e.g., (a typo of Liverpool Football Club); (a typo of clothing brand Carhartt WIP); and (a typo of Chevron, a large oil company). The fact that the disputed domain name does not currently resolve to any website does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding; all the factors that panels typically consider under that doctrine, apart from concealing of identity, favour the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. The Panel draws an adverse inference from the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.3. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. /Jeremy Speres/ Jeremy Speres Sole Panelist Date: November 14, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy