WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Case No. DSE2018-0009

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Skiltex ofDenmark.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is M. G. of Sweden.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the domain name <skiltex.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 March 7, 2018. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on April 12, 2018.

The Center appointed Peter Hedberg as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on April 30, 2018. 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 is a Danish limited liability company within the business of signs, displays and other products to be used in fairs and exhibitions. For its business, the Petitioner has registered the trademark SKILTEX in the European Union (EU) and uses the domain name <skiltex.dk> for a homepage related to its business.

The Domain Holder is the registrant for the domain name <skiltex.se> (the “Domain Name”), which was registered on January 19, 2011.

The Domain Holder has been served with the application for an alternative dispute resolution and invited to respond, but did not submit any response before the response due date. The Domain Holder submitted an email communication to the Center on May 17, 2018. The Arbitrator has not taken this email communication into consideration when deciding this case.

5. Claim

The Petitioner has claimed the transfer of the Domain Name to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder has not submitted any claims.

6. Parties’ Contentions

A. Petitioner

The Domain Name was registered by a “straw man” related to a competitor named Shopsign.dk, active within the same field of business as the Petitioner. The Petitioner is of the opinion that the owner of Shopsign hired his former business colleague to register the Swedish version of the domain name <skiltex.dk> in order to disrupt the Petitioner’s business activities in Sweden. The owner of Shopsign is also active in Sweden with a Swedish domain name <shopsign.se>. Through an excerpt from the Danish business registry at “www.virk.dk” the official association between the two persons described is seen.

The Petitioner believes that the Domain Holder has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting its business activities in Sweden. The Domain Holder has put a website template as a placeholder on the Domain Name, with latin “dummy” text. This creates no value for a visitor and this is just a way to avoid legal issues in Denmark.

In 2014 the Petitioner found out who the Domain Holder is and a few months later they found out the connections to Shopsign as described above.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder has not submitted any contentions.

7. Discussion and Findings

In accordance with Section 7.2 of the .se Policy, a domain name may be deregistered or transferred to the petitioner if the domain name

1. is identical or similar to e.g., a distinguishing product feature, a distinguishing business feature, which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the petitioner 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 to the domain name.

The three prerequisites are cumulative, meaning that all of them must be met in order for a deregistration or transfer to be possible.

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

The Petitioner is the holder of the EU trademark No. 009790254 SKILTEX, which is identical to the Domain Name.

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

The Domain Holder has not responded to the Petitioner’s contentions and the Arbitrator has to decide in the matter based on what has been put forward in the case by the Petitioner, considering what is convincing facts and evidence.

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder is a “straw man”, a secret representative of a Danish competitor to the Petitioner. An excerpt from the Danish business register has been filed as evidence, showing a connection dated 2008 between the alleged owner of the competitor and a person with the same name as the Domain Holder within a company named “Dansk Alge Rens”. No further evidence has been submitted in order to establish bad faith.

The Domain Name was registered in 2011 and the Petitioner states that it has been aware of the Domain Name and its holder since, at least, 2014. To the Arbitrator’s knowledge, the Petitioner has not sent any letters to the Domain Holder or in any other way claimed its rights to the Domain Name or protested against the actions of the Domain Holder.

In absence of any actual evidence or convincing facts, the Arbitrator finds that the Petitioner has not shown that the Domain Holder has registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.

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

Given that the second prerequisite is not met, there is no need to examine rights and justified interests to the Domain Name.

8. Decision

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the Domain Name shall not be transferred to the Petitioner.

9. Summary

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Holder is a “straw man”, a secret representative of a Danish competitor to the Petitioner. In absence of any actual evidence or convincing facts, the Arbitrator finds that the Petitioner has not shown that the Domain Holder has registered or used the Domain Name in bad faith.

Peter Hedberg
Date: May 20, 2018