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 eMadrid Reference 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


Inter IKEA Systems B.V. v. Ragnar Kallaste

Case No. D2014-1796

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems B.V. of Delft, the Netherlands, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Ragnar Kallaste of Münster, Germany.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ikea.trade> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 14, 2014. On October 15, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 16 and 20, 2014, 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.

According to information the Center received from the concerned Registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is German. The Complainant was therefore requested to provide at least one of the following: 1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or 2) submission of the Complaint translated into German; or 3) a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. The Complainant submitted a request on October 21, 2014 that English be the language of the proceedings, to which the Respondent did not reply.

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 in English and in German, and the proceedings commenced on October 27, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 16, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 17, 2014.

The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 21, 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 owner of the famous IKEA trademarks.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 10, 2014 and leads to a parking site.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name comprises the term “Ikea”, which is identical to the famous trademark of the Complainant. The addition of the new generic top-level domain (gTLD) “.trade” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and is therefore irrelevant to determine confusing similarity.

The Respondent does not have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name. Neither has the Complainant found anything that would suggest that the Respondent has been using “Ikea” in any other legitimate way.

There is no doubt that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s famous trademark IKEA when it registered the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the incorporation by the Respondent of a well-known trademark into a domain name in order to attract visitors to a commercial website and thereby boost traffic and income amounts to bad faith use.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of the Proceedings

The Complainant has requested English to be the language of the proceedings, despite the fact that the registration agreement is in German. Considering that the Respondent has not commented on this matter, it would seem to be appropriate, in accordance with paragraph 11 of the Rules, to conduct the proceedings in English.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Except for the ending “.trade”, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s famous trademark. Under these circumstances, the Panel considers that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has fulfilled paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

There are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name.

Based on the case file, the Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Considering the evidence submitted by the Complainant, this Panel is satisfied that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic to an unrelated website for the purpose of achieving commercial gain. Such conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has also satisfied 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 <ikea.trade> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: December 2, 2014