NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

Claim Number: FA2501002136287

PARTIES

Complainant is MIDEA GROUP CO., LTD ("Complainant"), represented by Paddy Tam of CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. Respondent is Petya Tsvetkova ("Respondent"), Bulgaria.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <midea.ro>, registered with Tool Domains Ltd dba Edoms.com.

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.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 22, 2025. Forum received payment on January 22, 2025.

On January 27, 2025, Tool Domains Ltd dba Edoms.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <midea.ro> domain name is registered with Tool Domains Ltd dba Edoms.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tool Domains Ltd dba Edoms.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tool Domains Ltd dba Edoms.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

On January 30, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 19, 2025 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@midea.ro. Also on January 30, 2025, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

On February 20, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury as Panelist.

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Established in 1968, Complainant, MIDEA GROUP CO., LTD, is an electrical appliance manufacturer that offers one of the most comprehensive ranges in the home appliance industry. Complainant specializes in air conditioning, refrigeration, laundry, large cooking appliances, large and small kitchen appliances, water appliances, floor care and lighting. While headquartered in Southern China, Complainant is a truly a global company with 166,000 employees and operations in more than 195 countries. The company has 21 production facilities and around 200 subsidiaries worldwide. In 2021, Midea America posted a global annual revenue of over $53.26 billion USD.

Complainant maintains a high web presence through its primary website <midea.com>, which received over 3.4 million visitors in November 2024.

Complainant has rights in the MIDEA mark, which is famous, through numerous registrations around the world. Respondent's <midea.ro> domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's MIDEA trademark.

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <midea.ro> domain name. Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with Complainant in any way. Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use Complainant's trademarks in any manner, including in domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is using the domain name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with Complainant's business.

Respondent registered the <midea.ro> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the famous MIDEA mark and uses it in bad faith to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of Complainant's trademarks in order to increase traffic to the Respondent's website for Respondent's own pecuniary gain, as evidenced by the presence of multiple pay-per-click links posted to Respondent's website, some of which directly reference Complainant and/or its competitors.

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

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

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

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

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 as 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').

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the MIDEA mark through numerous registrations in many countries, including International Trademark Reg. No. 751860, registered on December 19, 2000.

The Panel finds Respondent's <midea.ro> domain name to be identical to Complainant's MIDEA mark, since the inconsequential ".ro" country-code top-level domain (ccTLD) may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.

Complainant has established this element.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.

(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 <midea.ro> domain name was registered on October 2, 2019, many years after the registration of Complainant's famous mark. It resolves to a parking page displaying pay-per-click links regarding products and services that compete with those of Complainant, such as "Lg Dishwasher".

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 <midea.ro> 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.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith". Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four 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 Policy, including:

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its famous MIDEA mark when Respondent registered the <midea.ro> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted 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 products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

Complainant has established this element.

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <midea.ro> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: February 21, 2025