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

Essity Hygiene and Health AB v. Packy Phim, Nessssss

Case No. D2018-0346

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Essity Hygiene and Health AB of Göteborg, Sweden, represented by Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, United States of America.

The Respondent is Packy Phim, Nessssss of Westminster, Colorado, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name, <essjty.com> (the “Domain Name”), 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 February 15, 2018. On February 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 20, 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 February 22, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 14, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 15, 2018.

The Center appointed Tony Willoughby as the sole panelist in this matter on April 5, 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 is a Swedish corporation engaged in the development, production and sale of healthcare products. Until June 15, 2017 it formed part of the SCA Group, headquartered in Sweden, but on that date the business of the SCA Group was divided and the Complainant commenced business as a separate corporation under its current name. The division of the business of the SCA Group was announced to the public on April 5, 2017.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of numerous trade mark registrations of marks comprising or including its trading name “Essity” including i.a. International trade mark registration for ESSITY (registration number 1366140), registered on January 26, 2017.

The Domain Name was registered on November 26, 2017. It is not connected to an active webpage, but on November 28, 2017 it was used for an email address. The email as evidenced by the Complainant purported to come from the Chief Financial Officer of the Complainant’s ultimate parent company, and was addressed to “[redacted]@essity.com”, the redacted name being the name of one of the Complainant’s business managers and <essity.com> being a domain name of the Complainant. The email read:

“Hi [redacted],
How are you doing? Have you got a minute please? We need to make a payment for an invoice Magnus
Groth needs us to pay for today. I’d appreciate it if you can handle it.
Let me know when you get this and also available so I can pass across further information to you. Thank you.
Best regards, [redacted]”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which it has rights, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. General

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name comprises the term “essjty” and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain identifier, which may be ignored for the purpose of this assessment under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. The term “essjty” differs from the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark by one letter (“j”) and one which is very similar to the “i” it replaces.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ESSITY trade mark.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests and D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The background facts set out in Section 4 above, which are unchallenged by the Respondent, demonstrate that the Respondent selected the Domain Name for the very reason that the Respondent used it on November 28, 2017, namely to deceive a member of the Complainant’s staff into believing that the Respondent’s email was in fact from the Complainant’s Chief Financial Officer.

On no basis could such a use give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Moreover, registration of a confusingly similar domain name for such a purpose must lead to a finding of registration and use in bad faith for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel duly finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

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 Domain Name, <essjty.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

Tony Willoughby
Sole Panelist
Date: April 9, 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/