DECISION

 

Premier Farnell Limited v. [Names redacted]¹

Claim Number: FA2506002161088

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Premier Farnell Limited ("Complainant"), represented by David A. Jackson of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is [Names redacted] ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <farnelluk.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.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 June 16, 2025. Forum received payment on June 16, 2025.

 

On June 18, 2025, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <farnelluk.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.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 June 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 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@farnelluk.com. Also on June 23, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

Between July 4 and 10, 2025, [Name redacted] communicated informally with Forum.  

 

On July 15, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: IDENTITY THEFT

In its informal communications to Forum, [Name redacted] submitted that the person named as Respondent in this case is a former director of [Name redacted], who is being impersonated by the domain name registrant.

 

According to Policy paragraph 4(j), "[a]ll decisions under this Policy will be published in full over the Internet, except when an Administrative Panel determines in an exceptional case to redact portions of its decision." In Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellzfargo.com>, FA 362108 (Forum Dec. 30, 2004) and Wells Fargo & Co. v. John Doe as Holder of Domain Name <wellsfargossl>, FA 453727 (Forum May 19, 2005) the panels omitted the respondents' personal information from the decisions, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), in an attempt to protect the respondents who claimed to be victims of identity theft.

 

The Panel is satisfied from the conduct of the domain name registrant that the named Respondent and its organization had nothing to do with the registration of the domain name and that the domain name registrant registered the <farnelluk.com> domain name in the name of [Name redacted] / [Name redacted] without their knowledge or authorization. This constitutes identity theft.

 

Accordingly, pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(j), the Panel determines it appropriate in the circumstances of this case that the names of the person/organization listed in the WHOIS registration information in relation to the <farnelluk.com> domain name at the time of commencement of this proceeding (i.e. the Respondent, as defined in Rule 1) be redacted.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Founded in 1939 in the UK by its predecessor in interest, Complainant, Premier Farnell Limited, through its global businesses, distributes a comprehensive portfolio of products, delivered by 3,300 employees in 60 countries.  Complainant has strong common law and registered rights in the FARNELL trademark and has operated the website at "www.farnell.com" for over thirty years.

 

The <farnelluk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the FARNELL mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <farnelluk.com> domain name. Respondent is neither an authorized vendor nor a licensee of Complainant and does not have authorization to use the FARNELL mark in any way nor to register any domain names containing the mark.

 

Respondent uses the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant to scam third-party businesses into doing business with Respondent under the mistaken belief that they are doing business with Complainant, when that is not the case. No conceivable bona fide use of the domain name can exist when the intended use is a deliberate infringement of Complainant's rights.

 

The <farnelluk.com> domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith to engage in a fraudulent scam whereby it impersonates Complainant in an effort to procure products without payment. Moreover, Respondent clearly registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's mark as the signature block of Respondent's fraudulent phishing emails prominently displays Complainant's mark and distinctive logo as well as the physical address of one of Complainant's offices.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal 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 and 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 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 and is being used in bad faith.

 

In view of Respondent's failure to submit a formal 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in United Kingdom registered trademark FARNELL (Reg. No. 1538434, registered on June 10, 1993 for "Electronic and electrical components" in International Class 09).

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <farnelluk.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's FARNELL mark, only differing by the addition of the geographic abbreviation "uk", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead indicates the location of Complainant. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(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 <farnelluk.com> domain name was registered on March 20, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant's FARNELL mark. On June 9, 2025, an email from <accounts@farnelluk.com>, showing the name and an address of Complainant in the footer, was sent to a potential supplier, enquiring about placing an order.

 

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 <farnelluk.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (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

The four illustrative circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) are not exclusive.

 

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's FARNELL mark when it registered the <farnelluk.com> domain name and that Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith to masquerade as an employee of Complainant for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining goods without paying for them.

 

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 <farnelluk.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 17, 2025