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. Saeid Yaghoobi

Case No. DIR2019-0015

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Saeid Yaghoobi, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aeg-repair.ir> is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 20, 2019. On December 20, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 21, 2019, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on January 13, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 January 14, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 3, 2020. On February 12, 2020, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on March 2, 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, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a producer of appliances and equipment of kitchen, floor care and cleaning products.

The Complainant owns IR No. 802 025 for the trademark AEG, registered on December 18, 2002, renewal date December 18, 2012, which also covers the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 10, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers repair services for AEG products. The disputed domain name resolves to a website, which displays the logo of the Complainant’s trademark AEG written in red colour.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant contends being a leading producer of appliances and equipment of kitchen, floor care and cleaning products. The Complainant has registered domain names that include the trademark AEG. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the generic term “repair” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The use of the “ir” country code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) should be ignored.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not seem to be commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the disputed domain name will be used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The intention of the Respondent is to take advantage of an association with the business of the Complainant. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website. The Complainant invokes the test set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 and argues that its conditions are not met; the Respondent has not published a disclaimer on its website explaining that it is not connected with the Complainant and the website of the Respondent displays the logo of the Complainant, thus suggesting that the Respondent is the official partner of the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademarks predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant had started the use of AEG more than a century ago. It is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the unlawful registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant. The disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Complainant never granted the Respondent the right to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent is taking advantage of the trademark AEG and attempting to attract Internet users to its website by creating confusion with the Complainant’s marks.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns an international trademark registration for the trademark AEG, including Iran. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark AEG.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark AEG combined with the term “repair”, which does not eliminate the confusing similarity with the trademark AEG. The ccTLD “.ir” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes that the Respondent is offering maintenance services for AEG products thus creating the misleading impression that it is affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel is also of the view that the requirements of the Oki Data test have not been met in the case in hand.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark AEG is used in connection with a website, which offers services for AEG branded products. Furthermore, the trademark AEG has been in use for a very long time and is well known. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. Lastly, the Respondent did not respond to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 <aeg-repair.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: March 8, 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/