AB Electrolux v. sefa yapici
Claim Number: FA1702001716986
Complainant is AB Electrolux (“Complainant”), represented by Cecilia Borgenstam of SILKA Law AB, Sweden. Respondent is sefa yapici (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us>, registered with Uniregistrar Corp.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 12, 2017; the Forum received payment on February 13, 2017.
On February 13, 2017, Uniregistrar Corp confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> domain names are registered with Uniregistrar Corp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Uniregistrar Corp has verified that Respondent is bound by the Uniregistrar Corp registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 13, 2017, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2017 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@electroluxgroup.us, postmaster@electroluxpro.us, postmaster@electroluxhome.us, postmaster@electrolux-home.us, postmaster@electroluxstore.us. Also on February 13, 2017, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 17,2017, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Kenneth L. Port as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a Swedish-based manufacturer and retailer of home and professional appliances. Complainant uses the ELECTROLUX mark in conjunction with its business practices. Complainant registered the ELECTROLUX mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 248,774, registered Oct. 30, 1928). See Compl., at Attached Annex 3. Additionally, Complainant’s ELECTROLUX mark is internationally registered with the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 836605, registered Mar. 17, 2004). See Compl., at Attached Annex 5. Respondent’s <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELECTROLUX mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, adding generic terms (“group,” “pro,” “home,” and “store”), a hyphen, and the “.us” country code top level domain (“ccTLD”). Complainant indicates that the generic terms used in the disputed domain names are representative of Complainant’s business.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us>. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the ELECTROLUX mark in any regard, nor is Respondent affiliated with Complainant. Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain. Respondent’s <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> resolve to inactive webpages with no demonstrable intent to actively use the sites. See Compl., at Attached Annex. 7.
Respondent registered or is using <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> in bad faith. The disputed domain names are parked webpages lacking content or demonstrable intent for active use. Respondent registered <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> with at least constructive knowledge of Complainant and its rights to the ELECTROLUX mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. Respondent registered <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> on October 6, 2016.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names; and that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
The Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and subsisting trademark ELECTROLUX. Complainant has adequately plead its rights and interests in and to this trademark. The disputed domain names, <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us>, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s ELECTROLUX mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, adding generic terms (“group,” “pro,” “home,” and “store”), a hyphen, and the “.us” country code top level domain (“ccTLD”). This is insufficient to distinguish the disputed domain names from Complainant’s trademark.
As such, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.
The Panel further finds that Respondent has not rights or legitimate interests in or to the disputed domain names. Respondent has no license or permission to register the disputed domain names. WHOIS information associated with this case identifies Respondent as “sefa yapici.” See Compl., at Attached Annex 2. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods and services, or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to inactive webpages with no demonstrable intent to actively use the sites. See Compl., at Attached Annex. 7. “[Policy ¶] 4(c)(i) requires Respondent to show 1) ‘demonstrable’ evidence of such preparations to use the domain name, and 2) that such preparations were undertaken ‘before any notice to [Respondent] of the dispute.’” Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000-0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000). Moreover, Panels have found that “the [failure to make an active use] of a domain name that is identical to [c]omplainant’s mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).” Bloomberg L.P. v. SC Media Servs. & Info. SRL, FA 296583 (Forum Sept. 2, 2004).
Therefore, the Panel finds that “Respondent’s failure to associate content with its disputed domain name evinces a lack of rights and legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).” U.S. News & World Report, Inc. v. Zhongqi, FA 917070 (Forum Apr. 9, 2007).
The Panel further finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names resolve to inactive, parked webpages. See Compl., at Attached Annex 7. Complainant illustrates that the disputed domain names are parked webpages lacking content or demonstrable intent for active use. “Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015). Moreover, “[r]espondent’s failure to submit an assertion of good faith intent to use the domain name, in addition to the passive holding of the domain name, reveal that [r]espondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Martineau, FA 95359 (FORUM Aug. 30, 2000). The Panel concludes that “[u]nder the circumstances, Respondent’s seemingly inutile holding of the at-issue domain name shows Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).” Indiana University v. Ryan G Foo / PPA Media Services, FA1411001588079 (Forum Dec. 28, 2014).
Finally, given the fame of Complainant’s mark and the totality of the circumstances, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names with prior actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights and interests in the trademark ELECTROLUX.
The Panel, therefore, finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith use and registration of the disputed domain names.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be granted.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <electroluxgroup.us>, <electroluxpro.us>, <electroluxhome.us>, <electrolux-home.us>, and <electroluxstore.us> domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Kenneth L. Port, Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page