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. Jeremy Echnoz

Case No. D2017-2578

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Jeremy Echnoz of Long Beach, California, United States of America ("US" or "United States").

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <electroolux.com> ("Disputed Domain Name") is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on December 22, 2017. On December 22, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On December 24, 2017, 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 December 27, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 16, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on January 17, 2018.

The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on January 23, 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

It results from the Complainant's undisputed allegations that the Complainant is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world's leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant employs about 58,000 employees and in 2015 had sales of SEK 124 billion. The Complainant sells more than 60 million products to customers in more than 150 countries every year.

Furthermore, it results from the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant that the Complainant is the registered owner of many trademarks consisting of the term ELECTROLUX, covering amongst others, the United States, where the Respondent is located, such as:

(1) US trademark registration no. 0248774, registered in 1928, covering goods in class 11; and

(2) International trademark registration no. 1126087, registered in 2012, designating AL, BA, BY, CN, HR, IS, JP, KR, MD, ME, MK, RS, RU, SG, TR, UA, and VN and covering goods in class 7.

In addition, the Complainant owns a number of domain names containing the term "electrolux", such as <electrolux.com> (created on April 30, 1996) or <electrolux.se>.

It results from the WhoIs extract provided by the Complainant, that the Disputed Domain Name's creation date is December 13, 2017.

The Disputed Domain Name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX trademark in which the Complainant has rights because it comprises said trademark which is clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. In this context the Complainant asserts that on December 13, 2017 (the date the Disputed Domain Name has been created), the financial manager of the Complainant's Swedish sales company received an email from an email address under the Disputed Domain Name using the name of the Complainant's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") with the intention to attempt fraud on the Complainant. Finally, the Complainant contends that (i) it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register the Disputed Domain Name; (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name; and (iii) there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because of the Respondent's fraudulent behavior as described above. The Complainant submits that registration of a domain name including a well-known trademark points to bad faith, and that the lack of an active website at a Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable".

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following three elements in order to obtain an order that the Disputed Domain Name should be transferred or cancelled:

(i) the Disputed 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 Disputed Domain Name; and

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

The Panel is satisfied that the registrant of record for the disputed domain name is the Respondent and will, therefore, proceed to analyze whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark and secondly establish that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

It results from the evidence provided that the Complainant is the registered owner of various trademarks for ELECTROLUX. Reference is made to the US trademark registration no. 0248774, registered in 1928, and International trademark registration no. 1126087, registered in 2012. These trademark registrations predate the creation date of the Disputed Domain Name, which is December 13, 2017.

The Disputed Domain Name includes the trademark ELECTROLUX in its entirety and merely doubles the vowel "o" contained therein. This single-letter difference does not avoid a confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX, in particular regarding its wording and pronunciation. All to the contrary, this Panel has no doubts that in a side-by-side comparison of the Disputed Domain Name and the relevant trademark ELECTROLUX, the latter mark is clearly recognizable without any further ado within the Disputed Domain Name.

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the Disputed Domain Name. In the Panel's view, based on the allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

This Panel does not base its findings on the Complainant's allegations as to an email apparently sent on December 13, 2017, to the Complainant's Swedish sales company's financial manager from an email address under the Disputed Domain Name by using the name of the Complainant's President and CEO. In fact, the Complainant failed to provide evidence on the content of this email.

However, it results from the evidence provided by the Complainant that the Disputed Domain Name is currently not connected to any website. Such (lack of) use can be considered neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark at issue in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(i) and (iii) of the Policy (see SNCF Mobilités v. Private Registration / Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2016-1965; Sanofi v. kiyuni, WIPO Case No. D2016-1190; Sanofi, Genzyme Corporation v. Domain Privacy, WIPO Case No. D2016-1193; Volkswagen AG v. Nowack Auto und Sport - Oliver Nowack, WIPO Case No. D2015-0070; Deutsche Lufthansa AG v. Mustermann Max, Muster AG, WIPO Case No. D2015-1320).

Furthermore, no evidence or information has been provided that could lead the Panel to conclude that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds such prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Since the Respondent failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence in this regard, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant is therefore deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, "in particular but without limitation", be evidence of the Disputed Domain Name's registration and use in bad faith.

First it is to be noted that the non-use of a Disputed Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (see section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0")).

Furthermore, the Complainant has to the Panel's satisfaction proved a worldwide reputation of its ELECTROLUX trademark and company that has existed for over 100 years (see Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager, WIPO Case No. D2008-0823). Therefore, it is the view of this Panel that the Respondent would have known that the Disputed Domain Name interferes with the Complainant's ELECTROLUX trademark when the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name (see Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC, WIPO Case No. D2005-0517; Accenture Global Services Limited v. ICS Inc. / PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2013-2098).

Considering the high similarity between the trademark ELECTROLUX and the Disputed Domain Name, which suggests the Respondent's awareness of the trademark, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name for bad faith purposes. Relevant factors are (i) the high degree of distinctiveness and the worldwide reputation of the Complainant's mark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use, and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the Disputed Domain Name may be put.

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to 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 <electroolux.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Tobias Malte Müller
Sole Panelist
Date: February 6, 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/