Dyson Technology Limited v.
Claim Number: FA2204001991009
Complainant: Dyson Technology Limited of Malmesbury, Unknown, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: /
Respondent: Redacted for Privacy / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik, Capital Region, International, Iceland.
Respondent Representative: /
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 7, 2022
Commencement: April 12, 2022
Default Date: April 27, 2022
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant is a part of a group of companies which operates worldwide and is engaged in the design, development and sale of appliances such as vacuum cleaners, hand dryers, fans, heaters et al. The Complainant states it is the owner of the following trademarks:
The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the registered owner of the Russian word mark “DYSON”, with registration number 584875 (hereinafter the “Trademark”). The Complainant did not submit evidence that it is the registered owner of the EU trademarks mentioned in the Complaint.
As proof of use, the Complainant submitted a link/screenshot to/of the website <dysons.shop>, where the Complainant and its registered Trademark are mentioned.
The Respondent has not submitted a response.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant argues that “Dyson” is the distinctive element of the domain name since the extension should be ignored for the purpose of comparing the domain name with the Trademark. The Complainant states that the addition of the letter “s” is insignificant and will most likely not be noticed by consumers or will likely be regarded as a pluralization of the Trademark.
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue. The disputed domain name <dysons.shop> consists of the Complainant’s Trademark with the addition of the letter “s“ and the suffix .shop. As stated in numerous previous decisions, the suffix is indeed not to be considered in the determination of similarity between trademarks and domain names. The sole addition of the letter “s” does not create a noteworthy difference between the disputed domain name and the Trademark. The letter “s” will likely either be overlooked by consumers or be interpreted as the plural of the Trademark.
The Examiner decides that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Complainant has (a) not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trademark, or to register any domain name incorporating the Trademark, (b) The Respondent has no legitimate reason to use the Trademark, (c) The Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name, (D) The Respondent has acquired no rights in the Trademark.
The Respondent has not submitted a response and therefore did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner notes that there is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent, no identification of any authorization to use the Trademark, no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business and no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “DYSON” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Examiner decides that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name suggests an authorized connection between the parties which does not exist and which makes is inherently deceptive. The Complainant notes that the website available via the disputed domain name offers numerous Dyson products at prices significantly below the cost of the genuine products. Therefore, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was selected for the purpose of capturing internet users searching for goods sold by the Complainant. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is using the domain name to mislead the Complainant’s customers to derive commercial gain.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examiner finds that, since the Trademark and the disputed domain name are confusingly similar, and the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to offer products identical to the products offered by the Complainant (at lower prices), consumers will inevitably make a link between the Complainant and the disputed domain name. The Examiner concludes from this that there is no bona fide offering of goods. The Examiner concludes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration, in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.3.d of the URS Procedure.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<dysons.shop>
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: April 28, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page