AB Electrolux v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp.
Claim Number: FA2201001980976
Complainant is AB Electrolux (“Complainant”), represented by Cecilia Borgenstam of SILKA AB, Sweden. Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp. (“Respondent”), International.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <electrolux-service.ru.com>, registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd..
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
Complainant participated in the mandatory CentralNic Mediation, and the mediation process was terminated on January 17, 2022.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 19, 2022. The Forum received payment on January 19, 2022.
On Jan 19, 2022, TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name is registered with TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the TLD Registrar Solutions Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with the CentralNic Dispute Resolution Policy (the “CDRP Policy”).
On January 20, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 9, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@electrolux-service.ru.com. Also on January 20, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 14, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the CDRP Dispute Resolution Policy (“CDRP Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the CDRP Policy, CDRP Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules to the CDRP Policy and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant manufactures appliances and cleaning products. Complainant has rights in the famous ELECTROLUX mark through registrations with the World Intellectual Property Office (“WIPO”). Respondent’s <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use its ELECTROLUX mark in the domain name. Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, but instead uses Complainant’s mark to pass itself off as an authorized distributor and repairer of Complainant’s products, whereas Complainant’s distributor agreement explicitly prohibits authorized service providers from registering domain names incorporating Complainant’s mark.
Respondent registered the <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the ELECTROLUX mark. Respondent uses the domain name in bad faith to attract Internet users for commercial gain by passing itself off as one of Complainant’s authorized service providers and offering its repair services in violation of Complainant’s distributor agreement. Respondent failed to respond to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letters.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
Paragraph 15(a) of the CDRP Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the CDRP Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.
The CDRP Policy also requires Complainant to have participated in a CentralNic Mediation, and that said mediation must have been terminated prior to the consideration of the Complaint. Complainant has provided evidence of this.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the CDRP Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has shown that it has rights in the ELECTROLUX mark through registrations with WIPO (e.g. Reg. 836,605, registered March 17, 2004). The Panel finds Respondent’s <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and adds a hyphen and the descriptive term “service”, which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark, along with the inconsequential “.ru” country code top-level domain (“ccTLD”) and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), which may be ignored.
Complainant has established this element.
(i) before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The <electrolux.ru.com> domain name was registered on May 16, 2018. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant’s ELECTROLUX mark, offering repair and maintenance services for Electrolux products and purporting to be authorized by Complainant as a service provider in relation to Complainant’s products. There is no disclaimer on the website explaining that there is no relationship between Respondent and Complainant.
These circumstances, together with Complainant’s assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <electrolux.ru.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (Forum July 17, 2019).
Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has established this element.
Paragraph 4(b) of the CDRP Policy sets out five illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the CDRP Policy, including:
(iv) by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location; or
The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent is using the <electrolux.ru.com> domain name intentionally to impersonate Complainant in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website and of the services promoted on that website. This demonstrates use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under CDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the CDRP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <electrolux-service.ru.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: February 17, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page