WIPO Domain Name Decision DSE2020-0004 for vimcar.se

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding Accelerated Proceeding Case No. DSE2020-0004 1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Vimcar GmbHofGermany, represented by J.D., internally represented Vimcar GmbH, Germany. 2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is A. K., of India. 3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name .

This Petition was filed 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”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“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 February 3, 2020. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on March 5, 2020.

The Center appointed Bengt Eliasson as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on March 18, 2020. 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

Vimcar GmbH, the Petitioner, is registered in Germany since 2013 and holds the name “Vimcar” plus the addition of a limited liability (“GmbH”) adding up to “Vimcar GmbH”. The company provides digital services in the field of vehicle management for business customers and focuses on fleet management for small and medium size businesses. The Petitioner offers its services primarily via its website and has therefore registered the domain names , , , among many others. They also intends to offer its service on an international level, potentially also reaching out to the neighboring countries.

A petition for Alternative Dispute Resolution for the disputed domain name was filed by the Petitioner on January 23, 2020. The Domain Holder has been given an opportunity to submit a reply. No reply has been filed by the Domain Holder within the given deadline.

The Petitioner owns various European Union Trademarks (“EUTM”) such as VIMCAR” (No. 13573531, registration date April 22 2015), VIMCAR FLEET (No. 018107790, registration date December 13, 2019) and VIMCAR FLEET GEO (No. 018099699, registration date November 16, 2019).

The disputed domain name was registered by the Domain Holder on August 27, 2019 and is not active. 5. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Petitioner also requests to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Petitioner

The Petitioner is the owner of the above mentioned trademarks including EUTM Reg. No. 13573531 VIMCAR. The disputed domain name is identical to the Petitioner’s EUTM registration.

The Petitioner claims that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith by the Domain Holder.

The Petitioner has several times been approached with the offer to buy domain names registered under the company’s name. With an email dated September 17, 2019 the Petitioner was first offered to buy domain names including . This was repeated on September 30, 2019 with a second offer by the same person. The emails were signed by A. K. apparently director of the company Kasper Domain Solution, situated at Wanowrie IT Park, Wanowrie Pune. Previously the Petitioner and the Domain Holder agreed on a transfer of a different country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”).

The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is not in use, and has never been used. In light of the email from the Domain Holder, including claims that the disputed domain name has been registered following a prior negotiation between the parties for another domain name, it can be established that the disputed domain name has been registered solely for the purpose of sales in the first place. This is supported by the fact that the first registration of the domain name has been made on August 27, 2019 just about two weeks before first contact and therefore in a short time frame that emphasis the connection between registration and purpose of sale. Moreover, the word “vimcar” itself is a creation and has no meaning or translation, which points to the bad faith of the Domain Holder.

Furthermore there is no apparent link between the disputed domain name and the Domain Holder’s business undertaking in the field of Internet services or any other activity.

VIMCAR is a well-known brand in Germany, and the Petitioner has significantly invested in the brand name. Moreover, the Petitioner is looking in to growing its business abroad. Another company such as the registrar’s is potentially free-riding on the Petitioners brand name and could have significant negative impact on the Petitioners business reputation. B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder has not filed any reply or comments to the Petition for Alternative Dispute Resolution. 7. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may, in accordance with the .se Policy paragraph 7.2, 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 its action. A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of EUTM registration No. 13573531 VIMCAR, registered on April 22, 2015 which is identical to the disputed domain name . B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Arbitrator concludes that the disputed domain name has been registered four years after the registration of the Petitioner’s trademark. The Petitioner has contended that the disputed domain name was registered solely for the purpose of sales in the first place, which is supported by the fact that the Petitioner and the Domain Holder previously has agreed on a transfer of a different ccTLD. In the absence of any facts or comments in the case contradicting the claims presented by the Petitioner, it may be considered that the Domain Holder has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name.

The Domain Holder has not submitted any reply to the Petition and there is nothing else in the case stating that the Domain Holder has a right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. The Arbitrator therefore concludes that the Domain Holder has no right or justified interest in the disputed domain name. 8. Decision

The disputed domain name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Bengt Eliasson
Date: March 25, 2020

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy