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

Inter IKEA Systems BV (IISVB) v. Hosein Bagheri

Case No. D2016-0432

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems BV (IISVB) of Amsterdam, Netherlands, represented by Saba & Co. IP - Head Office, Lebanon.

The Respondent is Hosein Bagheri of Tehran, the Islamic Republic of Iran.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <irikea.com> is registered with Realtime Register B.V. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 3, 2016. On March 4, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 5, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 9, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2016.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on April 13, 2016. 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 owns the following trademark registrations in the Islamic Republic of Iran, in classes 11, 17, and 20: IRANIKEA, number 131437, registered on January 5, 2006; IKEA & Device, number 125527, registered on October 18, 2005; and IKEA & Device in Persian characters, number 125525, registered on October 18, 2005.

The disputed domain name is registered in the name of the Respondent and is used in connection with a website where furniture and other household items are being sold.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends owning the trademark and concept IKEA which it has franchised to retailers in 45 countries. The concept is that of ready-to-assemble furniture, which is sold by franchisee retailers of the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that its trademark is amongst the most well-known trademarks in the world and that it has been recognized as such. The Complainant contends owning more than 1500 trademark registrations of IKEA and its variants as well as few hundreds of domain names incorporating the trademark IKEA.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar and identical to its trademark as the prefix “ir” is the code for the Islamic Republic of Iran and hence using this prefix before the trademark of the Complainant gives consumers the impression that the Complainant sponsors the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered on November 5, 2014, which is many years after the registration in the Islamic Republic of Iran of the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent’s name bears no similarity to the trademark of the Complainant or the disputed domain name nor is the Respondent commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the trademark IKEA is an invented trademark which is formed of the first letter of various names relating purely to the founder of the IKEA trademark. The Complainant contends that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the trademark IKEA. It further contends that the Respondent’s use of the famous mark IKEA is done only in bad faith and with the aim of benefitting from the goodwill the trademark has built over the years.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name and started selling IKEA products online while also using the trademark of the Complainant on the receipts and bags in which it delivered the products. In addition, the Respondent uses photos from the Complainant’s website for the purpose of confusing consumers and attracting them for commercial gain. Furthermore, the Respondent did not respond to a cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has submitted a number of trademark registration certificates for the trademark IKEA in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark IKEA.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark IKEA combined with the prefix “ir”. The prefix “ir” is the common abbreviation for the Islamic Republic of Iran and its use together with the trademark of the Complainant in the disputed domain name does not eliminate the confusion with the trademark IKEA. On the contrary, it gives the impression that the website is indeed an online platform for the sale of goods bearing the trademark IKEA.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has indicated that it has never authorized the use of its trademark by the Respondent. The Panel notes that there are no indications that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and the Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the type specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests.

The Respondent did not submit a response and in the absence of such response, the Panel believes that the Complainant met the requirement under the Policy showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests. See, Investissement Marius Saradar S.A.L. (Holding Company) and Banque Saradar S.A.L. v. John Naffah and Z Publishing Inc, WIPO Case No. D2000-0853.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is clearly established by the fact that the trademark IKEA is one of the most well-known trademarks in the world in connection with furniture and household items. The disputed domain name is used to link to a website offering furniture, decoration and other household items. Furthermore, the trademark IKEA is an invented word. Hence, it is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its marks and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to his products sold online. The Respondent has registered the disputed domain name and is using it in bad faith in an attempt to confuse consumers and attract them through capitalizing and free-riding on the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 <irikea.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: April 15, 2016