À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. 3dvizyon Art Design

Case No. D2010-1703

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.

The Respondent is 3dvizyon Art Design of Konya, Turkey.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain name <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 8, 2010. On October 8, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 9, 2010, GoDaddy.com, Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 13, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 2, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 9, 2010.

The Center appointed Miguel B. O'Farrell as the sole panelist in this matter on November 9, 2010. 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 Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901, being a world leader producer of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning and of equipment for professional users.

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX, particularly a United States of America registration No. 908002, granted on February 16, 1971, a Community Trademark (CTM) registration No. 77925, granted on September 16, 1998, and a Turkish registration No. 78814, granted on December 31, 1993.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com> on May 19, 2010

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends the following:

The Complainant contends that it is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901, being a world leading producer of appliances and equipment for kitchens and cleaning, of equipment for professional users and the market leader in many of the individual product categories in which they compete, selling more than 40 million products to customers in 150 countries every year.

Moreover, the Complainant contends that it owns trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX in several classes in more than 150 countries, most of which have been registered before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 19, 2010

Furthermore, it contends that it is the owner of several gTLD and ccTLD domain names incorporating the trademark ELECTROLUX, particularly the Turkish domain name <electrolux.tr>.

On the other hand, the Complainant contends that the most distinctive term in the disputed domain name is Electrolux, which is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, adding that the mere addition of “beyazesya” and “servisi”, the English translations of which are “electronic household goods” and “service”, does not have any impact on the overall impression of confusion.

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has not licensed or given any authorization to the Respondent to use the trademark ELECTROLUX.

In that connection, the Complainant contends that the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services as the web site to which the disputed domain name resolves contains sponsored links misleading Internet users to a commercial web site and, therefore, sponging off the Complainant’s famous mark ELECTROLUX.

Moreover, it contends that there is no evidence that the Respondent has ever been known by “Electrolux” nor that the Respondent operates a business or any other organization under the disputed domain name.

On the other hand, the Complainant contends that the Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In that connection, the Complainant contends that the Respondent knew or should have known the Complainant and its trademark ELECTROLUX which evidences its bad faith registration.

Moreover, the Complainant contends that by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website and other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

For all the above-mentioned, the Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

For the Complainant to succeed in a UDRP proceeding, under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

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

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

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

In accordance with paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX, particularly a United States of America registration No. 908002, granted on February 16, 1971, a CTM registration No. 77925, granted on September 16, 1998, and a Turkish registration No. 78814, granted on December 31, 1993.

The disputed domain name <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com> incorporates the trademark ELECTROLUX in its entirety. The Panel also finds that the term “electrolux” is the most distinctive term in the disputed domain name.

The mere addition of the descriptive terms “beyazesya” and “servisi”, the English translations of which are “electronic household goods” and “service”, does not avoid the risk of confusion with the Complainant's mark. In the context of this case, they merely evoke the nature of the goods sold by the Complainant.

In view of the foregoing, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com> is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights, and therefore, the Complainant has succeeded on this first element under the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

According to paragraph 4(a)(ii), the second element that the Complainant must prove is that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Policy in its paragraph 4(c) sets out various ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name.

Although the Policy states that the complainant must prove each of the elements in paragraph 4(a), it is often observed that it is difficult for a complainant to prove a negative, i.e., that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name. It has therefore become generally accepted under the Policy that, once a complainant has presented a clear prima facie showing of a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name, the burden of submitting evidence therefore shifts to the respondent. The respondent must then by concrete evidence demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests in the domain name in order to refute the prima facie case.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and so the burden of proof has effectively been shifted to the Respondent, who did not reply to the Complainant's contentions and, therefore, has not made such showing.

In that connection, the Complainant has submitted relevant evidence showing that the Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services. The website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains pay-per-click links that redirect Internet users to other online locations offering related goods to those offered by the Complainant.

In the terms of the Policy, such use in the present circumstances does not appear to be a noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and, therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent is trying to misleadingly divert consumers to the website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Moreover, the Panel finds that the Respondent is attracting Internet users to its website for commercial gain. Such use cannot be considered a bona fide use, or fair or noncommercial use.

Additionally, there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known as or identified by “electrolux” or that it has any right in it. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent operates a business or any other organization under the disputed domain name.

For these reasons, and in the absence of a plausible explanation from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the third element that a complainant must prove is that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Policy in paragraph 4(b) sets out various circumstances, which may be treated by the Panel as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant has identified itself as a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901, being a world leading producer of appliances and equipment for kitchens and cleaning, of equipment for professional users and the market leader in many of the individual product categories in which they compete, selling more than 40 million products to customers in 150 countries every year.

Moreover, the Complainant has filed relevant evidence to the Panel’s satisfaction showing that it owns trademark registrations for ELECTROLUX in several classes in more than 150 countries, most of which have been registered before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 19, 2010.

Particularly, the Complainant owns a United States of America registration No. 908002, granted on February 16, 1971, a European Community Registration No. 77925, granted on September 16, 1998, and a Turkish registration No. 78814, granted on December 31, 1993, where the Respondent is apparently domiciled.

Moreover, the Complaint has filed relevant evidence to the Panel’s satisfaction showing that it renders its services in Turkey through the website “www.electrolux.com.tr” (associated to the domain name <electrolux.com.tr>).

In view of the foregoing, and in the absence of a rebuttal from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware or must have been aware of the trademark ELECTROLUX before registering the disputed domain name <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com>, which evidences bad faith registration.

Moreover, as stated by the Complainant and on the basis of the printouts of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, and in the absence of a rebuttal by the Respondent, the Panel finds that by using the disputed domain name the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.

For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent both registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that the Complainant has therefore made out the third element of its case.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <electroluxbeyazesya-servisi.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Miguel B. O'Farrell
Sole Panelist
Dated: November 23, 2010

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/