WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AB Electrolux v. Tran Nguyen Phuong

Case No. D2016-2419

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Tran Nguyen Phuong of Dak Lak, Viet Nam.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <maygiat-electrolux.com> and <maygiat-electrolux.net> (individually referred to as the "Disputed Domain Name" and collectively as the "Disputed Domain Names") are registered with P.A. Viet Nam Company Limited (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on November 29, 2016. On November 30, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On December 7, 2016, 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 Complaint was submitted in English. The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Names is Vietnamese. On December 8, 2016, the Center sent a language of proceeding communication in both Vietnamese and English to the Parties. On December 9, 2016, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not reply to the Center's notification or the Complainant's request.

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 in English and Vietnamese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 14, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 3, 2017.

Following the Respondent's email communication received by the Center on December 21, 2016, the proceeding was suspended at the Complainant's request on December 27, 2016, and reinstituted on February 27, 2017. The due date for Response was March 6, 2017. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the Panel appointment process on March 7, 2017.

On March 9, 2017, the Registrar, possibly on behalf of the Respondent, offered to transfer the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant. The proceedings were further suspended on March 15, 2017, and subsequently reinstituted on March 31, 2017.

The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 2017. 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, AB Electrolux, is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901. The Complainant is one of the world's leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products, selling many home and professional appliances. In 2014, Electrolux had sales of SEK 112 billion and about 60,000 employees.

The Complainant is the owner of a number of internationally registered trademarks ELECTROLUX, both in word and figurative forms, alone and in combination with other elements, in several classes in more than 150 countries all over the world. The Complainant further evidenced that it holds International trademark registration No. 836605 registered on March 17, 2004 for goods and services in Classes 3, 7, 9, 11, 12, 21, 25, 35, 37 and 39, and International trademark registrations designating Viet Nam including International trademark No. 1260775 registered on January 27, 2015 for goods and services in Classes 7, 9, 11, 21, 26, 35, and 37 and International trademark No. 1126087 registered on July 18, 2012 for goods in Class 7.

The Complainant also owns numerous domain names under generic Top-level Domains ("gTLD") and country-code Top-level Domains ("ccTLD") containing its trademark ELECTROLUX, among which is the domain names <electrolux.com> and <electrolux.vn>.

Finally, through its extensive use, the Complainant has gained over the years substantial reputation internationally for its Electrolux products.

The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names <maygiat-electrolux.com> and <maygiat-electrolux.net> on January 22, 2016 and on March 18, 2016 respectively. The websites under the Disputed Domain Names have been under operation for promotion of the Respondent's services in repairing Electrolux's washing machine.

As indicated in the case file, the Complainant's attorneys sent to the Respondent a cease-and-desist letter with regard to the Disputed Domain Name <maygiat-electrolux.com> on August 25, 2016 and a reminder on September 1, 2016, in which the Complainant asked for, amongst others, a voluntary transfer of such Disputed Domain Name. However, the Respondent did not reply.

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 Names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant contends that the Complainant is and has been for many years the rights holder of the trademark ELECTROLUX (the "trademark") in numerous countries worldwide, including in Viet Nam. The ELECTROLUX brand is the Complainant's flagship brand for kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users. The trademark well predates the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Names.

The Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as it comprises the word "electrolux", which is identical to the trademark, and the addition of the generic and descriptive Vietnamese words "may giat" (which means "washing machine" in English) does not materially change the confusingly similar conclusion.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the addition of the gTLD ".net" or ".com" in the Disputed Domain Names does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Names.

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

The Complainant submits that the intention of the Respondent in registering the Disputed Domain Names is to take advantage of the Internet traffic generated due to the incorporation of the well-known ELECTROLUX trademark in the Disputed Domain Names by arguing that: (i) the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names; and (ii) there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use the Disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the Complainant's trademark to attract Internet users to their website where they offer repair and maintenance services for ELECTROLUX products by arguing that: (i) the Complainant has no agreement with the Respondent and granted neither license nor authorization of any other kind to the Respondent for the registration and use of the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the Complainant's trademark; (ii) the Respondent's prominent use of the Complainant's trademark and logo on the top section of the websites at the Disputed Domain Names strongly suggest that the Disputed Domain Names are in a connection with the Complainant in some ways or the Respondent has some official or authorized relationship with the Complainant for the purposes of repair services in Viet Nam.

Further, the Complainant refers to the case Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 ("Oki Data") and submits that the Respondent's conduct does not meet the Oki Data criteria on three elements: (i) the Respondent does not publish a disclaimer on the websites; (ii) the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using the Complainant's official ELECTROLUX trademark and logo in its websites.

Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names cannot be considered as legitimate use by arguing that: (i) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's trademark prior to the acquisition of the Disputed Domain Names and the establishment of the Respondent's website; and (ii) the Respondent is not known by the Disputed Domain Names, nor does the Respondent claim to have made legitimate, noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain Names; and (iii) the Respondent failed to present some compelling arguments that it has rights in the Disputed Domain Names.

(iii) The Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

First, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are registered in bad faith by arguing that: (i) the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant's trademark and unlawfulness of the registration of the Disputed Domain Names as the Complainant's trademark registration predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Names; (ii) the Respondent has failed to respond to any communication attempts made by the Complainant, which can be considered relevant for a finding of bad faith registration.

Second, the Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Names are being used in bad faith.

The Complainant contends that the Complainant first tried to contact the Respondent on August 25, 2016 through a cease-and-desist letter and a reminder on September 1, 2016, under which the Complainant requested, amongst others, a voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name <maygiat-electrolux.com>. However, the Respondent has not yet replied and simply disregarded all communication attempts and notices given by the Complainant, which can be considered relevant in a finding of bad faith.

The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has never been granted permission to register the Disputed Domain Names and the Respondent intentionally chose the Disputed Domain Names based on a registered and well-known trademark in order to generate more traffic to its own business as a repair center.

In addition, the Respondent does not disclose on the Disputed Domain Names the non-existing relationship between it and the Complainant. Consequently, the Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites under the Disputed Domain Names, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent's websites or a product or service on the Respondent's websites.

The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has also registered a number of other domain names consisting of other well-known trademarks, which is argued by the Complainant to be taken into account as an indication of bad faith.

Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the Disputed Domain Names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent neither replied to the Complainant's contentions nor filed a response to the Complaint. However, the Respondent sent a communication to the Center on December 21, 2016, stating that the Respondent agreed to abandon the Disputed Domain Names: <maygiat-electrolux.com> and <maygiat-electrolux.net>.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Issues

Language of the Proceeding

The Complaint was filed in English on November 29, 2016. On December 7, 2016, 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 December 8, 2016 in English and Vietnamese, 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 substantiated request for English to be the language of the proceeding.

On December 9, 2016, the Complainant submitted a request that English to be the language of the proceeding.

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 proceeding, including, but not limited to:

(i) the nationality of the Parties;

(ii) the fact that the Complainant, a Swedish business entity, does not appear to be able to communicate in Vietnamese, and therefore, if the Complainant was required to have the documents translated into Vietnamese, the proceeding would be unduly delayed, and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation;

(iii) the Respondent did not submit any request concerning the language of the proceeding;

(iv) English is a popular language in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, making it likely to be understandable to the Respondent;

and for the purpose of easy comprehension of the Complainant (the only party actively taking part in the proceeding) 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 language of the proceeding shall be English and shall render its decision in English.

The Respondent's Failure to Respond

The Panel notes the Respondent's email dated December 21, 2016 mentioning his abandonment of the two Disputed Domain Names and several emails by the Registrar in March 2017 offering a transfer of the Disputed Domain Names to the Complainant. However, the Panel finds that these emails do not respond directly to the contentions of the Complainant or other substantive issues of the case. In fact, these emails, although causing in several suspensions of the case, do not result in a settlement of the case under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel considers these emails not the Respondent's response and on that basis, proceed further with his analysis of the case under the Policy, with appropriate inferences from these emails.

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 of the following three elements are present:

(i) the Disputed Domain Names 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 Names; and

(iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is required to establish the two following elements: (1) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (2) that the Disputed Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademark.

First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights to ELECTROLUX well before the Disputed Domain Names were registered. Also, the Complainant has sufficiently demonstrated and evidenced that it had a lengthy use of its trademark for its commercial activities, and in particular to offer kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users worldwide.

Secondly, the Disputed Domain Names comprise the Complainant's distinctive and widely-known ELECTROLUX mark in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The difference between the Disputed Domain Names and the trademark is the addition of the prefixes "maygiat" and a hyphen "-". The word "maygiat" can be written with accent marks as "máy giặt" in Vietnamese and means "washing machine" in English. Despite the fact that "maygiat" itself have no meaning in English, Vietnamese customers are likely to perceive it as "máy giặt" ("washing machine" in English). Thus, this prefix "maygiat" should be considered a descriptive term. The hyphen mark "-", which is a punctuation mark, has nothing to do with the distinguishability of the Disputed Domain Names. As such, the Panel finds that "electrolux" remains the dominant element in the Disputed Domain Names. It is well established that the addition of a descriptive terms (such as "maygiat") and a hyphen "-" to a trademark does not prevent confusing similarity, thus, in the Panel's view, the addition of the said prefix together with a hyphen do nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Names from the trademark, nor to dispel the confusing similarity, as it was found in previous UDRP decisions (see, e.g., AB Electrolux v. Ilgaz Fatih Micik, WIPO Case No. D2009-0777; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. ibp, WIPO Case No. D2013-0795; AB Electrolux v. Ong Bui Trung Kien, WIPO Case No. D2012-2320).

Thirdly, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the gTLD ".com" or ".net" to the Disputed Domain Names does not constitute an element so as to avoid confusing similarity (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, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark, and the first element under paragraph 4(a) 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 Names 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 trademark ELECTROLUX.

Normally, a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc, supra:

- 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, such as it is the case in this dispute (see, 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.

On the websites under the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent does not place any statement or disclaimer disclosing the lack of relationship with the Complainant, but uses the Complainant's logo-typed trademark and posts misleading statements. Particularly, on the website under the Disputed Domain Name <maygiat-electrolux.com>, the Respondent misleadingly stated that it is "Trung tâm bảo hành: Sửa chữa máy giặt Electrolux, sửa máy sấy quần áo Electrolux chính hãng tại TPHCM" (English translation: "Maintenance Services Center: Repair of Electrolux washing machines, repair of Electrolux tumble dryers – Genuine Maintenance Center in Ho Chi Minh City". On the website under the Disputed Domain Name <maygiat-electrolux.net>, another misleading statement is presented: "Trung tâm bảo hành chuyên sửa máy giặt Electrolux chính hãng tại TPHCM" (English translation: "Genuine Maintenance Services Center specializes in repairing Electrolux washing machines in Ho Chi Minh City").

In Panel's view, the use of the Complainant's logo-typed trademark on the websites and misleading statements as mentioned above may be further evidence of the Respondent's intention to create an impression that the Respondent is the Complainant's authorized maintenance service provider or has somehow an association or connection with the Complainant.

For all foregoing reasons, the Panel finds the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names cannot be considered to be a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Moreover, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that would suggest that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel further finds that no evidence has been presented that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Names. In fact, as it appears following the Complainant's assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent had full knowledge of the trademark and had an intention to gain a profit by riding on the good reputation of the Complainant.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Names, and the second element under paragraph 4(a) 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 an instance of "registration and use of a domain name in bad faith".

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

The Panel has considered the Complainant's assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Names. In this regard, the Panel finds that the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark has been registered on a worldwide basis. The Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark has been in use in, among other countries, Viet Nam where the Respondent resides.

The Disputed Domain Names comprise the ELECTROLUX trademark in its entirety, with an addition of the descriptive word "maygiat", which is the Vietnamese term for "washing machine", and a hyphen "-". Electrolux is being used in the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark, trade name, and domain names <electrolux.com>, <electrolux.vn>, which all well predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Names.

Also, the Panel finds that given the fact that the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark, which is a coined term, without any dictionary meaning, is not descriptive of anything and devoid of meaning other than the products of the Complainant, it is very unlikely that the Respondent would have registered the Disputed Domain Names incorporating the trademark without knowledge of the trademark (see in the same way Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Hightech Industries, Andrew Browne, WIPO Case No. D2010-0240; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment, WIPO Case No. D2013-0534) and that it defies common sense to believe that the Respondent coincidentally selected this precise domain names without any knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly noting the Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Names (see in the same way Asian World of Martial Arts Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2007-1415; Volkswagen AG v. Swiss Recruitment, supra).

These facts show that the Respondent did not register the Disputed Domain Names in a fortuity. The Respondent obviously knew of the Complainant and its ELECTROLUX trademark before the registration of the Disputed Domain Names, and the Panel considers the registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainant's goodwill.

In this respect, the Panel believes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX and the associated products and services at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Names. Similar to numerous previous UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the use of a complainant's mark to attract visitors to such a for-profit site constitutes bad faith (see e.g., Pfizer Inc. v. Fizer Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0285).

On the date of this Decision, the Panel accessed the Disputed Domain Names and found that they resolve to inactive websites. However, it is well proved and evidenced by the Complainant that by the date on which the Complaint was filed, the websites under the Disputed Domain Names had been used for promoting the repair services for all types of washing machines and other products branded with the Complainant's trademark.

In this regard, the Panel also finds that in addition to the adoption of the Complainant's trademark as a uniquely distinctive part in the Disputed Domain Names, the Respondent used the Complainant's logo-typed trademark on the websites and falsely represented itself as an Genuine Maintenance Service Center and repair service center of Electrolux in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam as mentioned in Section C above. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally used the Disputed Domain Names to mislead consumers into believing that the websites under the Disputed Domain Names are in somehow associated, fostered or recommended by the Complainant. The Respondent's subsequent taking down of the websites does not alter the Panel's finding.

With the said facts, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally registered and used the Disputed Domain Names for commercial gain and that the Respondent's actual use of the Disputed Domain Names appears to mislead consumers and confuse them by making them believe that the websites are associated, fostered or recommended by the Complainant. Such misleading behaviour is indicative of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, on the part of the Respondent (see in the same way Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Jose Manuel, WIPO Case No. D2010-2031).

Last but not least, in the email of December 21, 2016, the Respondent stated its intention to abandon the Disputed Domain Names. However, as mentioned in the letter dated January 5, 2017 and two reminders on January 22, 2017 and February 15, 2017 by the Complainant, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's request for signing the Standard Settlement Form. As such, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not comply with its statements in its correspondence to the Center, making the proceeding unnecessarily prolonged. These facts are indicative of bad faith from the side of the Respondent.

Taking into account all of the above and the available record, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and the third element under paragraph 4(a) 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 Names, <maygiat-electrolux.com> and <maygiat-electrolux.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2017