The Petitioner is Bevola A/S Danmark Filial Sverige of Sweden, represented by A/S Bevola, Denmark. 2. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder is M. J., TodaysWeb Ltda, of Sweden. 3. Domain Name and Procedural History
This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name .
This Petition was filed on November 13, 2017 under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).
Upon request by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”), the Petitioner filed an amended Petition on November 27, 2017, describing the legal grounds for the Petition, as well as amended identification of the Domain Holder.
The Center verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on December 1, 2017. The Domain Holder submitted a response on December 22, 2017.
The Center appointed Petter Rindforth as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on January 12, 2018. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules. 4. Factual Background
The Petitioner, manufacturing and selling components for building trucks and trailers, was founded 1968 in Denmark and has divisions in Denmark, Sweden and Norway. The Petitioner states that BevoNac is a brand name of the Petitioner, used for many years.
The disputed domain name was registered in the name of the Domain Holder on October 23, 2017, and resolves to a website with information on construction and refurbishing. No detailed information is provided about the Domain Holder’s activities, apart from what is mentioned below by the Petitioner. 5. Claim
The Petitioner has requested that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner, Bevola A/S Danmark Filial Sverige of Sweden. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Petitioner
The Petitioner informs that is was founded in Denmark in 1968 and has divisions in Denmark, Sweden and Norway, manufacturing and selling components for building trucks and trailers, as well as exporting such goods throughout Europe.
The Petitioner states that the Petitioner has no legal rights to BevoNac, but has used BevoNac as a brand name for many years.
BevoNac is contructed out of “Bevo” (as in Bevola) and “NAC” (as in “Nordic Axle Concept”), and is used by the Petitioner as the Petitioner’s axel concept for the Scandinavian conditions. The Petitioner also has other products including the name Bevo, such as “BevoBox”, “BevoPlan” and “BevoGrip”.
The Petitioner further states that BevoNac is so unique that it makes no sense for others to use it.
The Petitoner informs that the Petitioner is the holder of the domain names
The Petitioner concludes that the disputes domain name has been registered in bad faith as the name BevoNac does not make any sense to others as it is constructed as described above.
Further, the Domain Holder has tried to force the Petitioner to pay big amounts of money for the disputed domain name , and the fact that the website connected to has no contact address, no relation to the name BevoNac, and has not been finished suggests that it is fake and produced only to blackmail the Petitioner. B. Domain Holder
The Domain Holder denies the Petitioner’s claim. The Domain Holder states that the Petitioner has no right with legal value in Sweden, as BevoNac is neither protected as a trademark or company name.
The Domain Holder denies having been in bad faith at the time of registration of , and denies lack of legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. 7. Discussion and Findings
A domain name may, in accordance with paragraph 7.2 of the .se Policy, be deregistered or transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if all of the following three conditions are fulfilled:
1. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and
2. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith, and
3. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.
All three conditions must be met in order for a Petitioner to succeed in his action. A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights
The Arbitrator notes that the name referred to by the Petitioner is BevoNac. The relevant part of the disputed domain name is “bevonac”, as the addition of the country-code Top-Level Domain “.se” is insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a name right claimed by a petitioner. The Arbitrator concludes that is identical to BevoNac.
However, in order to fulfil this initial condition, the Petitioner also has to show name rights to BevoNac, which are legally binding in Sweden.
As noted above, the Petitioner informs that the Petitioner has no legal rights to BevoNac, followed by a general statement that the Petitioner has used BevoNac “as a brand name” for many years.
As also noted above, the Petitioner, upon request from the Center, has provided an amended Petition describing the legal grounds for the Petition.
Name rights for trademarks in Sweden do not have to be based on registered trademarks. Also protection for unregistered trademarks is available under Swedish law, by establishment on the Swedish market. A trademark symbol is deemed established on the Swedish market, if it is known by a significant part of the relevant public as an indication for the goods or services which are being offered under the trademark (Chapter 1, Article 7 of The Swedish Trade Marks Act).
In this case, the Arbitrator notes that, in neither the original version of the Petition, nor in the amended Petition, the Petitioner has provided any evidence of such use or common knowledge of a trademark or name right to BevoNac that can make a ground for recognition of BevoNac as an unregistered trademark with legal value in Sweden. The Petitioner’s general statement, with no further details, of use in Denmark, Norway and Sweden is not enough.
As the Petitioner has not provided evidence of any rights to the name BevoNac with legal value in Sweden, there is no need or ground for considering the other conditions, namely B) registration or use in bad faith, and C) rights or justified interest. 8. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Section 7.2 of the .se Policy, the Arbitrator decides that the Petitoner’s request for transfer of the domain name is rejected. 9. Summary
The disputed domain name is identical to a name that the Petitioner claims to have rights to by many years of use. However, the Petitioner has not provided any evidence in support of a conclusion that the Petitioner has established any name rights with legal value in Sweden by such use.
Petter Rindforth
Date: January 31, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy