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

AB Electrolux v. turkey

Case No. D2014-0827

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is turkey of Istanbul, Turkey.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <aegelectroluxservis-turkiye.com> is registered with Nics Telekomünikasyon Ticaret Ltd. Şti. (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on May 19, 2014. On May 19, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 20, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On May 22, 2014, the Center transmitted the language of the proceedings document to the parties in both English and Turkish. On May 22, 2014, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceedings. The Respondent did not submit its comments.

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 in both English and Turkish, and the proceedings commenced on June 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was June 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on June 23, 2014.

The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on June 30, 2014. 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 and registered as a Swedish company in 1919. It is a widely-known producer of household appliances and equipment, in particular in the cleaning and kitchen sector.

The Complainant has registered the trademarks AEG and ELECTROLUX in several classes in more than 150 jurisdictions, including Turkey. The first trademarks were registered many decades before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has further registered and operates the trademarks AEG and ELECTROLUX as domain names under several generic Top-Level Domains ("gTLD") and country-code Top-Level Domains ("ccTLD") worldwide, e.g., <aeg.com>, <aeg.com.tr>, <electrolux.com> and <electrolux.com.tr>.

According to the current record, the disputed domain name <aegelectroluxservis-turkiye.com> was created on November 15, 2013.

The Respondent seems to be an individual or company from Turkey. The true identity of the Respondent remains unknown as contact details in the WhoIs records for the disputed domain name are incomplete and apparently incorrect.

As evidenced by the Complainant, the Respondent used to park the disputed domain name with a Turkish webhosting company and later offered on the website linked to the disputed domain name repair services for AEG and Electrolux products in Turkey.

At the time of the decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to any website.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's well-known AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks.

The Complainant argues that the only difference between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks is that the disputed domain name additionally comprises the generic Turkish term "servis" and the country name "Türkiye". The Complainant is of the opinion that the addition of these generic terms does not negate the confusing similarity with its trademarks.

Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant states that the Complainant has never granted a permission or license to the Respondent to use its AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use its trademarks in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly believes that due to the notoriety of the AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks, the Respondent was or should have been aware of its trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel determines in accordance with the Complainant's request and the Rules, paragraph 11(a), that the language of these administrative proceedings shall be the English language. Although the language of the Registration Agreement is the Turkish language, the Panel finds that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances of this case, to conduct the proceedings in Turkish and request a costly Turkish translation of the Complaint while the Respondent has failed to raise any objection or even to respond to the Complaint or respond to the Center's communication with regard to the language of the proceedings, even though communicated in Turkish and in English. In its decision, the Panel also considers the notoriety of the AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks, which indicates that this is a typical cybersquatting case, which the UDRP was designed to time and cost efficiently stop.

According to paragraph 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable and on the basis of the Complaint where no Response has been submitted.

In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks 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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.

However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110.

It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the WIPO Overview 2.0.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks of the Complainant.

First, the Panel confirms that the Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of having trademark rights in AEG and ELECTROLUX. As evidenced in the Complaint, the Complainant is the owner of a large number of word and figurative trademarks with regard to the marks AEG and ELECTROLUX in many jurisdictions worldwide, including Turkey, where the Respondent is apparently located.

Although not identical, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant's AEG trademark as well as its ELECTROLUX trademark.

The disputed domain name differs from the Complainant's trademarks only by the addition of the generic Turkish term "servis", which means "service" in English, and the country name "Türkiye", which means "Turkey" in English. In the Panel's view, the addition of such generic terms does not negate the confusing similarity between the Complainant's trademarks AEG and ELECTROLUX and the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that this additional incorporation is purely descriptive and does not create a new distinctiveness separate from the Complainant's AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks. On the contrary, the full inclusion of the Complainant's trademarks in combination with the generic term "servis" and the country name "Türkiye", which directly relates to technical assistance provided by the Complainant for its household products in Turkey, even enhances the false impression that the disputed domain name is officially related to the Complainant. The Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is likely to confuse Internet users in their believing that the disputed domain name is affiliated or endorsed by the Complainant or that the use of the disputed domain name is at least authorized by the Complainant.

In view of the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has met the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel further finds that the Respondent has not demonstrated any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

While the burden of proof remains with the Complainant, the Panel recognizes that this would often result in the impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence needed to show the Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests is primarily within the knowledge of the Respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production of evidence shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or convincing argument to demonstrate a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).

With its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant's AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks in the disputed domain name.

According to paragraph 2.3 of the WIPO Overview 2.0, it is the consensus view among UDRP panelists that "a reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements." It is stated that "these requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site's accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder."

In view of the Panel, these requirements also apply mutatis mutandis to repair services offered for products of third parties if the trademarks of these products are part a domain name.

As evidenced by the provided screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name in the case file, the Respondent particularly failed in accurately and prominently disclosing the lack of relationship with the Complainant. On the contrary, the design and appearance of the website linked to the disputed domain name rather causes the impression that the Respondent is an official or at least authorized repair service of the Complainant in Turkey.

In the absence of a Response, the Respondent has further failed to demonstrate any of the other nonexclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or any other evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is further convinced that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent intentionally attempted to create a likelihood of confusion among customers and/or to tarnish the Complainant's AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks, apparently for commercial gain or any other illegitimate benefit.

First, the Panel believes that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant's trademarks when it registered the disputed domain name on November 15, 2013. At the date of registration of the disputed domain name, the Complainant's AEG and ELECTROLUX trademarks were already well known worldwide, including in Turkey, for many decades.

Second, the Respondent preferred not to respond to the Complainant's contentions, although being informed of the pending administrative proceedings by email and courier in Turkish and English language.

Third, the Respondent apparently tried to conceal its true identity by providing inaccurate contact details in the WhoIs records for the disputed domain name.

The fact that the disputed domain name is currently inactive does not change the Panel's findings in this respect.

All in all, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant consequently has satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 <aegelectroluxservis-turkiye.com> be transferred to the Complainant be cancelled.

Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: July 9, 2014

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/