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

Akelius Residential Property AB/Roger Akelius v. Pal Ahlsen

Case No. DCO2018-0014

1. The Parties

Complainant is Akelius Residential Property AB/Roger Akelius of Danderyd, Sweden, represented by Ports Group AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Pal Ahlsen of East Picton, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <akelius.co> is registered with Key-Systems GmbH dba domaindiscount24.com (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 8, 2018. On May 8, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 9, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 14, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 3, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on June 4, 2018.

The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on June 18, 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

Complainant, founded in 1994 by Roger Akelius, is a real estate company that buys, upgrades and manages residential properties. Complainant owns over 47,000 residential units in Sweden, Germany, Canada, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, France, the United States of America, and Denmark.

Complainant, in the name of its founder Roger Akelius, is the owner of several trademarks worldwide, including the following:

European Union (EU) Trade Mark No. 014585327 AKELIUS filed September, 23 2015;
EU Trade Mark No. 014667935 AKELIUS filed October 14, 2015;
Norwegian trademark No. 167867 AKELIUS filed February 25, 1994;
Swedish trademark No. 384992 AKELIUS filed December 21, 2005;
International trademark No. 1246935 AKELIUS filed March 20, 2015.

Complainant also operates a website at the domain name <akelius.com >.

Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent on April 24, 2018, but did not receive a response to the letter.

The webpage at the disputed domain name is inactive.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademarks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

In order to succeed in its claim, Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

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

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the 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".

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has demonstrated that it owns strong rights in the trademark AKELIUS. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's trademark in its entirety. The addition of the country code Top-Level Domain ("ccTLD") ".co" adds no distinctiveness and does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant contends that Respondent is not a licensee or authorized user of Complainant's mark.

The record indicates that the website at "www.akelius.co" is not currently being used for any legitimate purpose, and has not previously been used for any activities that could be seen as legitimate. The registration information strongly suggests that the disputed domain name was registered with Complainant's trademark in mind. The registrant information includes the name of Complainant's Chief Executive Officer ("CEO").

Complainant has found no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name or is making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Indeed, as discussed below, Respondent appears to be using the disputed domain name for fraudulent purposes.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states circumstances which, if found, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website or location of a product or service on the respondent's website or location.

Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registering the disputed domain name, having registered the domain name in the name of Complainant's CEO.

Respondent has used the disputed domain name in connection with a technical set up that forwarded all the emails from one of Complainant's employees to Respondent's email, thereby causing a security leakage. Respondent managed to access sensitive log-in details, and thus managed to set up a redirect to Respondent's registrant email. The record therefore indicates that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith with the intention to harm Complainant through fraudulent procurement of sensitive information for the purpose of money transfer or other illegal activities that will damage Complainant.

The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name 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 disputed domain name <akelius.co> be transferred to Complainant.

Lynda J. Zadra-Symes
Sole Panelist
Date: July 2, 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/