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. 孙洪洲

Case No. DCN2019-0020

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is 孙洪洲, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> is registered with Hangzhou Dianshang Internet Technology Co., LTD (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 2, 2020, 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 China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy and China ccTLD Dispute Resolution Policy Rules (the “WIPO Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, Articles 5 and 6, and Articles 14 to 16, and the WIPO Supplemental Rules, Paragraph 4(d), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Chinese, and the proceedings commenced on January 13, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, Article 17 and 49, the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 4, 2020.

The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2020. 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, Article 29.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, a Swedish company founded in 1901, is one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen, cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant owns the registrations for the mark AEG in many jurisdictions, including the International trademark registrations, No. 837539A and No. 822564, acquired on June 22, 2004 and October 29, 2003 respectively.

According to the Registrar’s verification response, the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> was registered by the Respondent on August 25, 2019. The disputed domain name is being used for the website “www.aeg-powertools.com.cn” and it is being offered for sale on the website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> is confusingly similar to its registered trademark AEG.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn>.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> was registered or is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Language of Proceeding

According to Article 8 of the Rules, the language of proceeding shall be Chinese, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or decided by the Panel in exceptional cases.

The Complainant has requested that the language of the proceeding be English and presented the reasons. The Respondent did not make any submissions in relation to the language of the proceeding even though the Center’s communications to this effect (as was the Notification of Complaint) were both in English and in Chinese.

In accordance with Article 31 of the Rules, the Panel shall ensure that each Party be treated with equality and given a fair opportunity to present its case.

Therefore, the Panel should take into account whether the Respondent is able to understand the language of the Complaint and whether the Complainant would be disadvantaged by having to translate all the submissions into Chinese, when assessing the Complainant’s request for changing the language of the proceeding.

Based on the evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Respondent has sufficient capacity to understand and use English because the Respondent displays the contents solely in English on the website established at the disputed domain name as well as in the domain name character string. On the other hand, the Complainant has submitted the Complaint and evidence materials in English and would bear considerable costs to translate all the submissions into Chinese and take part in the proceeding in Chinese.

The Panel further notes that the Respondent did not submit a reply.

Having considered all the circumstances, this Panel determines under Article 8 of the Rules that English shall be the language of the proceeding.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar to the Complainant’s name or mark in which the Complainant has civil rights or interests

Pursuant to the Policy, Article 8(a), a complainant must prove that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name or mark in which the complainant enjoys civil rights or interests. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its civil right or interest in the relevant name or mark and the similarity between the disputed domain name and the complainant’s name or mark.

The Panel notes that the Complainant acquired the international trademark registrations for AEG through international trademark registrations, i.e. No. 837539A on June 22, 2004 and No. 822564 on October 29, 2003, and China is one of the designated countries.

Therefore, before the registration of the disputed domain name on August 25, 2019, the Complainant has acquired the trademark registrations for AEG in China through the International Trademark Registration system and enjoyed the trademark right under the Chinese law.

The disputed domain name is <aeg-powertools.com.cn>. Apart from the Chinese country-code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) suffix “.cn” and the generic second-level domain suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “aeg-powertools”, in which “aeg” and “powertools” are linked up with the hyphen mark. The Panel notes that the former part “aeg” of the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s registered mark AEG and the latter is the dictionary term “power tools” (without the space though). Given that the Complainant’s mark AEG has been registered and used on a variety of domestic apparatus, including electronic drills and other power tools, the Panel finds that the addition of “powertools” to the Complainant’s mark AEG does not prevent a finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark.

Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn>, as a whole, is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark AEG. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by Article 8(a) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.

It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Article 10 of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in Article 10 of the Policy apply here. To the contrary, the lack of any Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.

Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn>. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the element required by Article 8(b) of the Policy.

D. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to these contentions.

The Complainant proves that the Respondent’s website established at the disputed domain name, “www.aeg-powertools.com.cn”, is solely used to publicly offer to sell this domain name. On the website, the Respondent states that “aeg-powertools.com.cn is a transferrable Brand Assets”, “the benefit you will get from this premium domain name”, “[t]he value of the domain name will gradually rise”, and “the sooner purchasing the more wise”.

Given that the Respondent has never established any “Brand” since the registration of the disputed domain name, the so-called “Brand Assets” promoted by the Respondent obviously refer to the reputation of the Complainant’s mark of AEG, which is the only distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent’s statements made on the website of the disputed domain name actually disclose that the Respondent has been intentionally taken advantage of the brand value of the Complainant’s AEG mark by registering and offering to sell the disputed domain name to the public.

Since registering the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn>, the Respondent has always been trying to sell it for profit in a variety of means. The Respondent’s business model demonstrates that the Respondent registered and sells the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of free-riding on the reputation of the Complainant’s AEG mark so as to acquire the unjustified benefits.

The Panel therefore finds it adequate to conclude that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> in bad faith under the Policy, Article 9(d). The Complainant has successfully proven the element required by Article 8(c) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with the Article 14 of the Policy and 40 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <aeg-powertools.com.cn> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: February 21, 2020

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/