WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Temme Steve/Steve Inc

Case No. D2015-1089

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A of Pully, Switzerland, represented by Valea AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Temme Steve/Steve Inc of Arlington, Washington, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <tetrapaks.net> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 25, 2015. On June 25, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 26, 2015, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 9, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 29, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 30, 2015.

The Center appointed Sir Ian Barker as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 2015. 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 a Swiss corporation which owns all the trademarks worldwide belonging to the Tetra Park Group (TPG). It licenses these trademarks to independent market companies within the TPG for use in connection with their retail businesses. TPG is a multinational food processing and packaging company which develops, produces and sells equipment and processing plants for the making, packaging and distribution of foods and accessories. TPG operates in some 170 countries and employs more than 32,000 people worldwide.

The Complainant owns the TETRA PAK trademark which is registered in some 160 countries with some 2,000 registrations. The trademark has been registered in the United States of America (where the Respondent is based) since 1954.

The Complainant’s trademark is used exclusively by the Complainant and its licensees in the marketing of TPG’s goods and services. Its fame has been confirmed in several WIPO cases under the Policy. For a recent example, see Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Zhang Peng, WIPO Case No. D2015-0484.

The Complainant owns more than 300 domain name registrations throughout the world containing the TETRA PAK mark.

The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 6, 2014. On April 23, 2015, a cease and desist letter was sent to the Respondent on behalf of the Complainant. No response was received.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark and adds the letter “s”. This is a case of “typosquatting” where a trademark is misspelt by the addition of an extra letter.

The Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant gave it none. Nor do any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy apply to the Respondent who has not filed a Response.

The Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the date of registration of the disputed domain name. Registration of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an entity which has no relationship with the mark is itself sufficient evidence of bad faith registration and use (see Ebay Inc. v Wangming, WIPO Case No. D2006-1107).

There is no way on which the Respondent could use the disputed domain name legitimately and the passive holding of the disputed domain name confirms that inference.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to be entitled to a transfer of a domain name, a complainant shall prove the following three elements:

(i) The domain name 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 domain name; and

(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The mark is replicated and an “s” added. This is an obvious case of typosquatting.

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant gave the Respondent no authority whatsoever to reflect its trademark in the disputed domain name. That fact, together with the absence of any attempt by the Respondent to bring itself within one of the three situations envisaged by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, is sufficient to establish this criterion. The Respondent has chosen to file no Response.

Accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is highly likely that the Respondent knew of the worldwide fame of the Complainant’s trademark when the disputed domain name was registered in November 2014.

Passive holding of the disputed domain name when there is no way in which it can legitimately be used because of the specific circumstances of the case, including the well-known nature and reputation of the trademark, has been held consistently in Policy jurisprudence to amount to bad faith registration and use. This proposition was first articulated in the early case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 and has been followed very often. See Tetra Laval Holdings & Finance S.A. v. Zhang Peng, supra referred to in this decision for an example.

The above situation, together with the fact that this is an obvious case of typosquatting, more than enough satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. This is an archetypal case of blatant and simplistic cybersquatting and typosquatting which is still continuing to be found despite the existence of the Policy since 1999.

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 <tetrapaks.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Sir Ian Barker
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2015