WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Case No. DSE2020-0056

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is J&J Snack Foods Corp., United States of America, represented by Arnold + Siedsma, Netherlands.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is T.L., Slush Trading AB, Sweden.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name <slushtrading.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. On November 24, 2020, the WIPO Center sent an invitation to amend the Petition. The Petitioner submitted an amended Petition on November 27, 2020. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on December 1, 2020. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder's default on January 4, 2021.

The Center appointed Monique Wadsted as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on January 7, 2021. 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

The Petitioner, J&J Snack Foods Corp., was founded in 1971 and is listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market. Headquartered in New Jersey, the company employs around 4,200 people. The company operates in the Specialty Foods Industry within the segments Food Service, Retail Supermarkets and Frozen Beverages. The company manufactures and distributes snack foods to foodservice and retail supermarket outlets across the United States of America. The portfolio of products, which includes soft pretzels, frozen beverages and juice treats, is marketed under 25 trademarks. The trademark SLUSH PUPPIE represents one of the principal products. The Petitioner is the owner of the following applicable trademark registrations:

- Swedish Registration No. 172904 for SLUSH PUPPIE and Device, registered on July 11, 1980, and duly renewed;
- European Union Trademark (“EUTM”) Registration No. 000476200 for SLUSH PUPPIE and Device, registered on March 14, 2005, and duly renewed;
- EUTM Registration No. 17092446 for SLUSH PUPPIE, registered on February 9, 2018.

The Domain Name <slushtrading.se> was registered on October 24, 2001, by the Domain Holder.

5. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the disputed Domain Name <slushtrading.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder has not responded to the Petition.

6. Discussion and Findings

Section 7.2 of the Registration Terms regarding the .se country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) provides that a Domain Name shall be transferred to the Petitioner if the following requisites are met;

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 and;

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith and;

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

The Petitioner has submitted evidence in the form of Trademark Office extracts proving ownership in Sweden of the legally recognized trademark SLUSH PUPPIE at the time of the Petition.

The Swedish trademark registration was made before the Domain Name was registered. The registered right is composed of the two words SLUSH PUPPIE. The Domain Name begins with the term “slush” thus following the same composition as the registered trademark. However, the entirety of the registered trademark SLUSH PUPPIE is not found within the Domain Name. Furthermore, the additional term “trading” is different from “puppie”. The combination of the words “slush” and “trading” is also in the Arbitrator’s view linguistically different from SLUSH PUPPIE.

In all events, the Arbitrator finds that from a national trademark law perspective the Domain Name does not demonstrate the required similarity to the registered trademark. Therefore, the Petitioner has not satisfied the requirements under Section 7.2(a) of the Registration Terms. Consequently, the Petitioner’s claim must be denied.

Whether the current usage of the Domain Name constitutes i.e. an infringement of the Petitioners Intellectual Property or misleading marketing practice as regulated under the Trademark Act (SFS 2010:1877) and the Marketing Practices Act (SFS 2008:486) are matters that can be tried in court.

7. Decision

The Petitioner’s claim is denied.

Monique Wadsted
Date: January 18, 2021