WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Ong Tran Minh Cuong

Case No. D2014-2170

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Inter Ikea Systems B.V. of Delft, Netherlands, represented by BMVN International LLC, Viet Nam.

The Respondent is Ong Tran Minh Cuong of Hanoi, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <snikea.com> (“Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with Mat Bao Trading & Service Company Limited d/b/a Mat Bao (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 12, 2014. On December 12, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 23, 2014, 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.

On January 19, 2015, the Center notified the Parties in both Vietnamese and English that the language of the Registration Agreement in this case was Vietnamese and that the Complaint was administratively deficient.

The Complainant filed an amended Complaint in Vietnamese on January 24, 2015.

The Center verified that the amended 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on January 28, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for response was February 17, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 18, 2015.

The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2015. 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.

The Panel finds that it was properly constituted and appointed in accordance with the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The Panel shall issue its decision based on the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a renowned corporation in the world for its highly diversified appliances and furniture products, and interior design work. The Complainant has its global operation in more than 27 countries/territories with 315 stores and employs around 135,000 employees.

The Complainant is the owner of the well-known trademark IKEA (“IKEA Trademarks”) in numerous countries and jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the European Union, the United States of America, France and Viet Nam. In Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, the Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the IKEA Trademarks, including Trademark Registration No. 926155 dated April 24, 2007 for IKEA, logo in Classes 16, 20, 35 and 43; Trademark Registration No. 8949 dated August 18, 1993 for IKEA in Classes 20, 21 and 42; and Trademark Registration No. 8950 dated 18 August 1993 for IKEA, logo in Classes 11, 24 and 35.

The Complainant also owns, among others, the domain names <ikea.com> and <ikeafoundation.org>.

The Disputed Domain Name was registered with the Registrar on October 4, 2012.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows:

(i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant asserts that it has the rights in and to the IKEA Trademarks, which are well-known for furniture products, amongst other things. The Complainant is the owner of the IKEA Trademarks, in both word and logo form, in numerous countries and jurisdictions, including, but not limited to, the European Union, the United States of America, France and Viet Nam. These trademark registrations were dated long before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by the Respondent on October 4, 2012. The Complainant has extensively used the IKEA Trademarks for its furniture products and related services since it gained ownership over these marks. IKEA is also incorporated in the Complainant’s domain names <ikea.com> and <ikeafoundation.org>.

The Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name, which incorporates the Complainant’s IKEA Trademark in its entirety and hence, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark. In particular, the word “IKEA”, which accounts for four out of six letters of the Disputed Domain Name and is inherently distinctive and does not have any meaning in Vietnamese and English, is a visually and aurally dominant element of the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks are well-known for local consumers. These might lead the Vietnamese Internet users into believing that the Disputed Domain Name is both owned and operated by the Complainant.

Further, the Complainant argues that on the website that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to, and in the signboard of the shop named “SNIKEA” located in Hanoi, the Respondent has attempted to make the “IKEA” part stand out from “SNIKEA” by using a different color for the “SN” component of the name “SNIKEA”.

In addition, the Complainant asserts that the generic term “sn” does not affect the similarities between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks.

The Complainant also submits a Conclusion of Assessment issued by the Viet Nam Intellectual Property Research Institute on May 12, 2014, in which the said body concluded that the word “sn” was a weak element in the “SNIKEA” sign and the “SNIKEA” sign was confusingly similar to the IKEA Trademarks.

Finally, the Complainant asserts that the extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks and the Disputed Domain Name.

As such, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the IKEA Trademarks, to which the Complainant has rights.

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant argues that the burden of proof is shifted to the Respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name, once the Complainant has made a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

First, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name by arguing that (i) the Complainant established its rights in and to the IKEA Trademarks long before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name; (ii) it has no connection to, or affiliation with the Complainant; and (iii) “IKEA” is a highly distinctive element.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent does not qualify for any of the three (3) criteria set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Particularly, the Respondent has linked the Disputed Domain Name to a website that sells not only IKEA products but also products of other brands. Besides, the Complainant also asserts that there was no information on the website resolved to by the Disputed Domain Name that “accurately and prominently” discloses the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

In addition, the Complainant further asserts that there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or is making a legitimate noncommercial, or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Thus, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

(iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith

The Complainant asserts that the use of the Disputed Domain Name demonstrates that the Respondent registered it in bad faith with the aim of profiting from consumer confusion, by representing an association or affiliation with the Complainant in order to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial gain.

The Complainant submitted that in 2011, the Management Market Bureau in Hanoi (“MMB Hanoi”), conducted a raid because of trademark infringement over the IKEA Trademarks that was committed by the Respondent Tran Minh Cuong, also the owner of SNIKEA furniture store located at No. 63 Truong Lam, Long Bien, Hanoi, Vietnam.

The Complainant argues that IKEA Trademarks have a strong reputation and are widely known through substantial use, and that the Respondent also markets IKEA trademarked products on the Respondent’s website at “www.snikea.com”. This fact demonstrates that the Respondent must have been perfectly aware of the existence of the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks at the time of its registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, the Disputed Domain Name could not be legitimately adopted by the Respondent other than for the purpose of creating an impression of an association with the Complainant.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent, at the time of its registration of the Disputed Domain Name, intended to profit from the name IKEA, which is the Complainant’s trademark and trade name, as well as the consumer confusion as to the Respondent’s association or affiliation with the Complainant, by attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website for commercial purposes, thus generating “commercial gains” to the Respondent.

The Complainant contends that the registration of a domain name, that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark, by any entity that lacks a relationship to that mark itself, could be considered as a sufficient evidence of bad faith use for the purpose of the Policy. Further, the Respondent’s website markets not only IKEA goods, but also similar products of other brands. To this end, a number of UDRP panels, have correctly ruled that bad faith is found where the Respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to sell products competitive to that of the trademark holder.

Consequently, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is registered and used in bad faith by the Respondent.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural issues

(i) Respondent’s Identity

In the initial Complaint, the Respondent is named “Solid Software JSC”. However, the Registrar’s verification on December 23, 2014 (and confirmation of January 6, 2015) disclosed the contact details of the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name, which was Ong Tran Minh Cuong. On January 24, 2015, the Complainant submitted an amended Complained in Vietnamese, where “Ong Tran Minh Cuong” was named as the Respondent of the case.

In this regard, the Panel finds that “Ong Tran Minh Cuong”, the registrant of the Disputed Domain Name as indicated by the Registrar, is satisfied to be the Respondent under the paragraph 1 of the Rules. Hence, the Panel proceeds with the decision against the Respondent Ong Tran Minh Cuong, not Solid Software JSC.

(ii) Language of the Proceeding

The Complaint was filed in the English language on December 12, 2014. On December 22, 2014, the Registrar informed that the language of the registration agreement is Vietnamese. As the Complaint was filed in English, the Center, in its notification dated January 19, 2015, invited the Complainant to submit either (i) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English, or a translation of the Complaint in Vietnamese, or (ii) a supported request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. On January 24, 2015, the Complainant submitted an amended Complaint in the Vietnamese language.

According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the 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.

Similar to previous UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the spirit of paragraph 11(a) is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfortability with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors (see e.g., Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho, WIPO Case No. D2003-0679).

In the present case, in consideration of the above circumstances of the administrative proceeding, including, but not limited to, the nationality of the parties, a lack of reply from the Respondent and for the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “The Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, under Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the Panel accepts the amended Complaint in Vietnamese, but shall render its decision in English.

(iii) The Respondent’s Failure to Respond

The Respondent’s failure to file a response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see e.g. Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn, WIPO Case No. D2010-1413 and M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-0941). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to decide on the remedy sought by the Complainant, the Panel will examine whether each the following three elements are present:

(i) the Disputed Domain Name registered by the Respondent 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.

Consequently, the Panel shall further analyze the eventual concurrence of these three grounds in the present case.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (i) that it has trademark rights, and (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.

First, the Panel finds that the Complainant has evidenced that it has trademark rights in the IKEA Trademarks, which were registered well before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Also, the Complainant has demonstrated and evidenced its lengthy use of its trademark for its commercial activities, and in particular to offer appliances and furniture worldwide.

Second, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known IKEA Trademarks, in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The Panel also finds that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks in its entirety.

In this regard, the Panel takes the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”), paragraph 1.2 as a guide. The Overview states that “The threshold test for confusing similarity under the UDRP involves a comparison between the trademark and the domain name itself to determine likelihood of Internet user confusion. In order to satisfy this test, the relevant trademark would generally need to be recognizable as such within the domain name, with the addition of common, dictionary, descriptive, or negative terms [...] typically being regarded as insufficient to prevent threshold Internet user confusion. Application of the confusing similarity test under the UDRP would typically involve a straightforward visual or aural comparison of the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name.”

With the said guidance, the key points for assessing the confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark are:

1. Whether or not the relevant trademark is recognizable as such within the domain name;

2. Whether or not a straightforward visual or aural similarity occurs against the trademark with the alphanumeric string in the domain name (for this purpose, the panel may ignore the generic domain suffix of the domain name); and

3. Whether or not Internet user confusion is likely.

In this regard, the Panel finds that the IKEA Trademarks are well-known trademarks to local consumers, and in its actual use on the website at the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has attempted to make the “IKEA” part stand out from the “SN” component by using a different color. Hence, the Panel opines that it is the Respondent’s intention to include the word “IKEA” into the Disputed Domain Name, and the IKEA Trademarks are recognizable as such within the Disputed Domain Name.

Further, similarly to a number of previous UDRP panel decisions, for example, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Above.com Domain Privacy/ Trent Bradley- Domainer Energy, WIPO Case No. D2013-0919, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. VDC Online, WIPO Case No. D2011-1180, Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Carlos Fernandez, WIPO Case No. DES2013-0019, where the domain names <ikead2.com>, <ikeavn.com> and <ikeas.es> were held confusingly similar to the IKEA Trademarks, and Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Biniewicz Jerzy, WIPO Case No. D2012-1140, and Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. N//A, zhou qi jian, WIPO Case No. D2012-1139, where the domain names <oelectrolux.com> and <shelectrolux> were held confusingly similar to the well-known trademark ELECTROLUX, the Panel finds that the addition of the common component “sn” to the Disputed Domain Name does not eliminate its similarity to the IKEA Trademarks.

In addition, the content of a website may provide an indication as to a respondent’s targeting of a specific trademark through the domain name chosen. Accordingly, the context in which a domain name is being used may be helpful to assess confusing similarity and likelihood of confusion. Here, the Disputed Domain Name directs to webpages displaying commercial links reproducing Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks. The Panel thus considers that the Respondent has sought to take advantage of Internet users typing an incorrect address when seeking to access the Complainant’s website, a practice known as “typosquatting” and condemned in a number of UDRP panel decisions. As such, the Panel opines that a visual and aural similarity still occurs between the Disputed Domain Name and the IKEA Trademarks, and Internet user confusion is likely.

Third, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy (see e.g. Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services, WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz, WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A. v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A., WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

On the basis of the foregoing findings, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks, and the first element under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is established.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy reads:

“When you receive a complaint, you should refer to paragraph 5 of the Rules of Procedure in determining how your response should be prepared. Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii):

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.

The Panel finds, in light of the Complainant’s asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant’s trademark has been granted to the Respondent and there is no evidence that the Respondent holds such rights. Thus, the Respondent has no rights in the IKEA Trademark.

Normally, a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have a right or legitimate interest in a domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (Oki Data):

- the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;

- the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise, there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods);

- the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner; and

- the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name.

The Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the Oki Data criteria are appropriate even when the respondent is not an authorized reseller (e.g., National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, Inc. v. Racing Connection / The Racin’ Connection, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2007-1524). However, in this particular case, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not fulfill the Oki Data criteria. Indeed, the website under the Disputed Domain Name not only promotes and markets the products under the IKEA Trademarks, but also other brands. Furthermore, there is no information on the websiste under the Disputed Domain Name presenting accurately the Respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner. For these reasons, the Panel finds the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name cannot be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Oki Data criteria.

Moreover, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, it is apparent that by selling the furniture products via the website thereunder, the Respondent is making a commercial use of the Disputed Domain Name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and the second element under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is established.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy reads:

“For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location”.

Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, is evidence of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has put forth sufficient evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, has not refuted the Complainant’s contentions.

Registration in bad faith

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks have been registered on a worldwide basis, and enjoy significant reputation. The Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks have been in use in, among other countries, Viet Nam where the Respondent resides.

The Disputed Domain Name comprises the IKEA Trademarks in their entirety, adding only the common component “sn”. IKEA is being used in the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks, trade name, and domain names <ikea.com> and <ikeafoundation.org>, which all well predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. IKEA, which is a coined word, without any dictionary meaning, is neither descriptive nor generic in respect of any products or services.

These facts show that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Name in a fortuity. The Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant and the Complainant’s IKEA Trademarks before his registration of the Disputed Domain Name, and the Panel considers the registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill.

Use in bad faith

As discussed earlier, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s well-known IKEA Trademarks in their entirety, and the IKEA Trademarks are recognizable as such in the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name currently directs to a commercial website, which sells both the Complainant’s products as well as those of other manufacturers.

With such facts, the Panel upholds that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name to intentionally attempt to attract Internet users to its commercial website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s IKEA Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, for commercial gain, and earning. In addition, numerous UDRP panels have held that bad faith is found where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to sell products competitive to that of the trademark holder.

In this regard, the Panel takes note of the Complainant’s submission that in 2011, the local enforcement authority, namely, the MMB Hanoi, conducted a raid against ONG TRAN MINH CUONG, the owner of the furniture store located at No. 63 Truong Lam Street, Long Bien District, Hanoi, Viet Nam, for his infringement upon the Complainant’s Intellectual Property (IP) rights in Viet Nam. In the current case, the named bank recipient for all online orders of IKEA products from the website under the Disputed Domain Name is ONG TRAN MINH CUONG (Mr. Tran Minh Cuong). In addition, the website under the Disputed Domain Name also refers to its physical store located at No. 63 Truong Lam Street, Long Bien District, Hanoi. With such submissions, the Complainant claims that the Respondent and its related party have repeated their conduct of trademark infringement upon the Complainant’s IP rights in Viet Nam. Since the Respondent did not respond against the Complainant’s submission, and hence, did not refute it, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s submission, and finds it to be more evidence of the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

Taking into account all of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is established.

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 <snikea.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: March 17, 2015