Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Globaltek International Mexico, SA DE C.V.
Case No. D2009-1472
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.
The Respondent is Globaltek International Mexico, SA DE C.V. of Mexico City, Mexico.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <electroluxmexico.com> is registered with Tucows Inc.
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 30, 2009. On October 30, 2009, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows Inc. a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 30, 2009, Tucows Inc. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On November 4, 2009, the registrar confirmed that the internal lock in place will ensure that the disputed domain name does not drop at the end of the expiration date. 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 5, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 25, 2009. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 26, 2009.
The Center appointed Zentaro Kitagawa as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 2009. 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, AB Electrolux is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and registered as a Swedish company in 1919. As shown in the list of the registered trademarks, provided by the Complainant in accordance with paragraph 3 (b)(viii) of the Rules, it has registered the trademark ELECTROLUX as a word mark in respect of appliances and equipment for kitchen, cleaning and outdoor products in several classes in more than 150 countries and several trademarks in each country.
The Complainant is also the owner of close to 700 domain names containing the term ELECTROLUX.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <electroluxmexico.com>. Currently, the “www.electroluxmexico.com” website displays no particular item.
5. Parties' Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant's assertions are as follows:
1. The disputed domain name <electroluxmexico.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark ELECTROLUX.
The Complainant is the owner of the well known trademark ELECTROLUX. The Respondent's domain name in question is clearly confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered trademark. The suffix “mexico” does not detract from the overall impression and the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> must therefore be considered to be confusingly similar with the Complainant's trademark. The dominant part of the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> comprises the word “electrolux”, which is identical to the registered trademark ELECTROLUX.
2. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>. There exists nothing that would suggest that the Respondent has been using any trademark in any way that would give it any legitimate rights in the name. No license or authorization of any other kind has ever been given by the Complainant to the Respondent, to use the Complainant's trademark. The Respondent cannot have any rights or legitimate interests in the Complainant's world famous trademark.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>.
3. The Respondent registered and uses the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> in bad faith.
The Complainant first became aware of the Respondent's registration in August 2009. The Complainant first sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent on August 14, 2009. The Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of the ELECTROLUX trademark within the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> violated the Complainant's rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX. The Complainant requested the immediate transfer of the domain name and offered compensation for the expenses of registration and renewal fees (not exceeding out of pocket expenses). The Respondent did not reply to the letter. A reminder was sent on August 28, 2009 and then a final reminder on September 11, 2009 but the Complainant never heard back from the Respondent. The Complainant has used the trademark ELECTROLUX substantially and continuously for over 80 years on products and services in many countries. The considerable value and goodwill of the mark ELECTROLUX cannot have been unknown to the Respondent. Any use of the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>, in connection with a website, would create an impression of an association with the Complainant and as such would suggest opportunistic bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Respondent must be considered to have registered and be using the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit any response to the Complainant's contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights
The dominant part of the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> comprises the word “electrolux”, which is identical to the trademark ELECTROLUX registered by the Complainant. The addition of the top-level domain (gTLD) “.com” is irrelevant when determining whether the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark. Moreover, the addition of the suffix “mexico” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the domain name.
The Panel finds that the domain name<electroluxmexico.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark ELECTROLUX.
B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name
The Respondent registered the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> more than one year ago. The domain name has still not been taken into any real use. The Respondent, however, has not registered any trademarks or trade names corresponding to the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>, and has not used such trademarks or trade names. Furthermore, the Complainant has never given the Respondent any license or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant's trademark.
For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name <electroluxmexico.com>.
C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
After the Complainant became aware of the Respondent's registration in August 2009, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, asserting that the unauthorized use by the Respondent of the ELECTROLUX trademark in the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> violated the Complainant's rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX and requesting the immediate transfer of the domain name and offered compensation for the expenses of registration and renewal fees. Two reminders were thereafter sent by the Complainant to the Respondent. The Respondent did not reply to the Complaint. It follows that the Center notified the Respondent's default on November 26, 2009. Furthermore, given the reputation of the Complainant's trademark, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent must have been aware of the ELECTROLUX trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. Considering that the Respondent has no connection with the Complainant, the above mentioned circumstances constitute evidence of opportunistic bad faith (see Veuve Cliquot Ponsardin, Maison Fondée en 1772 v. The Polygenix Group Co.m
WIPO Case No. D2000-0163.
Consequently, the Panel considers that the Respondent registered and uses the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> in bad faith.
7. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <electroluxmexico.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Zentaro Kitagawa Sole Panelist
Dated: December 14, 2009
Stay updated! Get new cases and decisions by daily email.
