WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Case No. DSE2020-0022

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Orangescape Technologies Limited, India, represented by Suresh Sambandam, India.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is A.F. FlexQube A, Sweden.

3. Domain name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the disputed domain name <kissflow.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on April 7, 2020. The Domain Holder submitted a response on May 7, 2020.

The Center appointed Per Carlson as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on May 14, 2020. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Factual Background

Orangescape Technologies Limited (the Petitioner), founded in 2003, is a limited company incorporated in India and engaged in Software Development and Software Services. The Petitioner is the holder of inter alia the international trademark KISSFLOW (registration No. 1426623) registered on April 9, 2018 for, among other things, software services in class 42, designated to the European Union and consequently protected in Sweden.

A.F. (the Domain Holder) is the holder of the disputed domain name <kissflow.se>, registered on November 30, 2015 and displays a parking page.

5. Claim

The Petitioner has requested that the disputed domain name <kissflow.se> be transferred to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder has contested the request.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

In support of its claim the Petitioner has relied on the grounds, that the disputed domain name <kissflow.se>, is identical or similar to the Petitioner’s registered trademark KISSFLOW, that the disputed domain name has been registered and used in bad faith and that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the disputed domain name.

The Petitioner has stated, inter alia, the following allegations.

The Petitioner is the owner and proprietor of the said trademark in relation to software services, on account of honest, bona fide and prior adoption of the trademark and continuous commercial use thereof. The Petitioner has used the trademark KISSFLOW since 2011. KISSFLOW was first launched at GOOGLE I/O in 2012. The Petitioner’s services are highly demanded in the markets on account of standard, quality and precision. Due to this acclaimed credibility, the Petitioner’s trademark KISSFLOW has been enviously viewed upon.

In accordance with article 7.2.1 of the .se Policy, the disputed domain name <kissflow.se> is confusingly similar to the trademark KISSFLOW, as it is apparent that the disputed domain name entirely contains the trademark.

In accordance with article 7.2.2 of the .se Policy, it is stated that the disputed domain name <kissflow.se> has been registered and is being used in bad faith by the Domain Holder.

Considering the popularity of the Petitioner’s brand and the fact that the Petitioner also has a registered trademark containing the words KISSFLOW and such trademark has been in existence before the Domain Holder registered the disputed domain name, it is highly unlikely that the Domain Holder was unaware of the Petitioner’s repute in the software industry. To further establish the above statement, it is evident that anyone who has access to the Internet can find the KISSFLOW trademarks on public databases, including, but not limited to WIPO Brand Database and a simple Google search of the term “kissflow” shows results exclusively of the Petitioner’s website.

In accordance with article 7.2.3 of the .se Policy, it is stated that the Domain Holder should be considered as having no rights or justified interests in respect of the disputed domain name <kissflow.se>.

The Domain Holder has not been commonly known by the name KISSFLOW and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights. The Domain Holder´s use and registration of the disputed domain name was not authorized by the Petitioner. Further, the Domain Holder lacks any rights or justified interests in the disputed domain name and has not shown any substantial evidence that demonstrates its rights or justified interests in the disputed domain name.

The Domain Holder has disputed that the disputed domain name <kissflow.se> is identical or similar to the Petitioner’s trademark, that the disputed domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, as well as that the Domain Holder has no rights nor justified interest in the disputed domain name.

The Domain Holder has in substance submitted the following

To my knowledge, there were no registrations within the field in which I am planning to use the domain name. The initial word KISS of the trademark is very general and easy to remember. The following word FLOW is the word wolf, spelled backwards, and the so called province animal of Värmland, the province from which I come. Therefore it is a fine combination for me personally to use in a future business as consultant within the area of inter alia management.

I run several businesses and I am planning to use the domain name in a new type of business. I have spent a lot of time to find out suitable names for my businesses and I have also spent money in maintaining the registration of the domain name.

7. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with article 7.2 of the .se Policy, a domain name may be transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings, if the following three conditions are fulfilled:

1. the domain name is identical or similar to a distinguishing product feature, inter alia a trademark, which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, 2. the domain name has been registered or used in bad faith; and
3. the domain holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

A. The domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights.

The Petitioner is the holder of the international trademark KISSFLOW, legally recognized in Sweden. The disputed domain name <kissflow.se> is identical with the Petitioner’s said trademark KISSFLOW.

B. The domain name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Domain Holder’s explanation of how the disputed domain name “kissflow” was created stands out as far-fetched and improbable. In view of the originality of the solid compound “kissflow”, used on the Internet since 2012, the disputed domain name can hardly have been created without the trademark KISSFLOW as a model (cf. res ipsa loquitor).

The disputed domain name must for these reasons be considered to have been registered in bad faith in the meaning of the .se Policy.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

The Domain Holder has not stated any fact that would constitute a right to or a justified interest in the domain name.

8. Decision

On the basis of the foregoing, the disputed domain name <kissflow.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

9. Summary

The disputed domain name <kissflow.se> is identical to the trademark KISSFLOW. The disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith in the meaning of the .se Policy. And the Domain Holder has not stated any fact that would constitute a right or a justified interest in the disputed domain name.

Per Carlson
Date: June 3, 2020