About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AB Electrolux v. Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot

Case No. D2018-1069

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <electrolux.website> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 16, 2018, 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 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Tommaso La Scala as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 2018. 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, a Swedish company established in 1901, is global leader in household appliances and appliances for professional use, selling more than 60 million products to customers in more than 150 markets every year.

The Complainant has registered the trademark ELECTROLUX in over 150 countries, including the Respondent’s country of residence (see, among others, international trademark registration Nos. 79170718 and 73003551, both designating the United States, registered on August 30, 2016, and on October 15, 1974, respectively).

The trademark ELECTROLUX has been the subject of extensive and long-term use on products and services of the Complainant and such circumstance has been confirmed by previous UDRP decisions (e.g., AB Electrolux v. eijiobara obara, WIPO Case No. D2011-1618; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Andrew Scherer, WIPO Case No. D2010-2024; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Vuong Van Nam, WIPO Case No. D2014-1505).

The Domain Name <electrolux.website> was registered on February 26, 2018. The registrant of the Domain Name is Super Privacy Service c/o Dynadot of California, United States. The Domain Name resolves to an inactive website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark, as it exactly reproduces it. As for the top-level suffix, the same is usually irrelevant in the comparison under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy and should be disregarded under the confusing similarity test.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor is it making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain, to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of another.

The Domain Name currently resolves to an inactive website. In this regard, the Complainant further states that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith, considering that the Respondent surely had constructive notice that the ELECTROLUX trademark was registered in the United States and in many other jurisdictions worldwide (a basic Google search would have revealed such circumstance).

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following elements:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established its registered rights in the ELECTROLUX trademark.

The Domain Name <electrolux.website> exactly reproduces the ELECTROLUX trademark. As indicated by previous UDRP panels, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s registered mark (e.g., The Ritz Hotel, Limited v. Damir Kruzicevic, WIPO Case No. D2005-1137).

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel believes the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register the Domain Name exactly reproducing its trademarks.

The Respondent did not respond nor provide any evidence that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks of the Complainant. In fact, the Respondent is not making any apparent use of the Domain Name at all.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Panel notes that the trademark ELECTROLUX is well-known and given its renown in several countries – including the United States, where the Respondent is domiciled – the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and that it registered the Domain Name comprising an exact reproduction of the Complainant’s trademark in bad faith.

As a matter of fact, a quick search on Google for ELECTROLUX would have revealed to the Respondent that all the results retrieved are strictly related to the Complainant and its trademark.

As for the use of the Domain Name, based on the evidence submitted, the Respondent registered the Domain Name and, as of this day, is passively holding it without using it for any purpose. Previous UDPR panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (Revevol SARL v. Whoisguard Inc. / Australian Online Solutions, Domain Support, WIPO Case No. D2015-0379; Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Cesar Alvarez, WIPO Case No. D2016-2140). The Respondent has sought to conceal its identity by registering the Domain Name using a privacy shield. The Panel cannot conceive of any good faith use to which the Respondent might put the Domain Name that would not create a misleading impression of association with the Complainant or its trademark. The Panel holds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name, which exactly reproduces the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX, constitutes use in bad faith (Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003).

The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 <electrolux.website> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tommaso La Scala
Sole Panelist
Date: June 26, 2018

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/