WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Oneandone Private Registration / James Truax
Case No. D2014-1665
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems B.V. of Delft LN, Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Oneandone Private Registration of Chesterbrook, Pennsylvania, United States of America (the "USA")/ James Truax of South Jordan, Utah, USA.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <ikeachandelier.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the "Registrar").
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on September 25, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 29, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 2, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on October 7, 2014.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 28, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 29, 2014.
The Center appointed Michael J. Spence as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 2014. 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 is the international franchisor of furniture and home furnishing products manufacturing and retail business under the trade mark IKEA, for which it has over 1,500 registrations in more than 80 countries. It operates in 42 countries through around 345 stores and had an annual turnover in 2013 of EUR 29.2 billion.
The disputed domain name was created on October 31, 2011. The Respondent operates a website under the disputed domain name containing links to the website "www.ebay.com" on which products not manufactured by the Complainant are offered for sale.
5. Parties' Contentions
The Complainant contends: that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its marks; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that it has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trade mark in its entirety along with descriptive material identifying a type of product within the categories for which the trade mark is registered. That descriptive material does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant's trade mark, but only reinforces the association between the two. There can be no doubt that the disputed domain name is identical, or confusingly similar to, the Complainant's trade mark.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
It is for the Complainant to establish, at least prima facie that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110).
In this case the Complainant has been unable to identify any legitimate use, or preparation to use, the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The only use that has been made of the disputed domain name is for a website - on which there is no disclosure of the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder -containing links to a website offering goods for sale which are in the same field of business as those of the Complainant. This activity appears to constitute an attempt to profit from the confusion created by the similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant's trade mark and therefore cannot constitute use giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Given that the Complainant's trade mark is both invented and extremely well-known, and given that the Respondent's website contains links to websites offering goods for sale similar to those of the Complainant, the Respondent must have known of the likelihood of confusion between the Complainant's trade mark and the disputed domain name at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name. Further, the operation of a "pay-per-click" website at the disputed domain name evinces an intention to profit from that confusion. This is a classic case of registration and use in bad faith under the Policy.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has established the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in relation to the disputed domain name.
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 <ikeachandelier.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Michael J. Spence
Date: November 22, 2014