WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao

Case No. D2013-1223

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Aktiebolaget Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Melbourne IT Digital Brand Services, Sweden.

The Respondent is Pablo Rodriguez Guirao of Palma de Mallorca, Spain.

2. The Domain Name And Registrar

The disputed domain name <electroluxmallorca.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 8, 2013. On July 8, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 9, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July, 9 2013 the Center advised the Complainant that in one Section of the Complaint the listed domain name was different to the named disputed domain name. On the same date the Complainant submitted an amendment to the Complaint in the form of a Notice of Incorrect Domain Name in Complaint, confirming that the correct domain name under Section A. of the Complaint “should be electroluxmallorca.com.”

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 July 12, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 1, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2013.

The Center appointed Frank R. Schoneveld as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 2013. 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.

Due to exceptional circumstances beyond the control of the Panel that prevented issuance of a decision by the due date originally notified to the parties, this Decision was not finalized until October 15, 2013.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a producer of appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning, both for professional and domestic use. Annual sales of over 40 million products were made to customers in 150 countries. The Complainant had a turnover in 2009 of SEK 109 billion and is employing 51,000 people. The Complainant holds more than 500 registrations of the ELECTROLUX trademark with six of those currently registered in Spain. The Complainant has also registered “Electrolux” in a domain name under almost 700 gTLDs and ccTLDs worldwide, among these <electrolux.com>.

According to the WhoIs Record, the disputed domain name was registered on January 19, 2013 by the Respondent using “1 & 1” Internet, Inc. AG.

By letter of March 11, 2013 a representative of the Complainant stated in a letter to the Respondent that “you are using the domain name for your own commercial gain, Electrolux considers this to be a trademark infringement…”, and asks the Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, offering to “reimburse out of pocket expenses the registrar may charge for the transfer and the registration fee you have paid for the domain name.”

The Registrar of the disputed domain name confirmed by email dated July 9, 2013 that the language of the registration agreement is English.

The webpage to which the disputed domain name reverts, as submitted by the Complainant, offers to provide aftersales repair services of the Complainant and other branded domestic appliances. At the top of the web page in a font smaller than most of the rest of the page, there is a statement “Aeg-Electrolux-Zanussi-Corbero Servicio Technico extra Oficial Mallorca” which in English is “Aeg-Electrolux-Zanussi-Corbero Non Official Technical Service Mallorca” [Panelist’s translation]

It is also stated in the middle of this webpage that: “Servicio Técnico independiente del Fabricante para AEG-ELECTROLUX-ANUSSI-CORBERO en Mallorca… No somos SERVICIO TECNICO OFICIAL DEL FABRICANTE AEG-ELECTROLUX-ZANUSSI-CORBERO por lo que No realizamos intervenciones en Electrodomesticos en Garantia de Fabrica.”

In English this is: “Technical Service independent of the manufacturer for AEG-ELECTROLUX-ZANUSSI-CORBERO in Mallorca… We are NOT OFFICIAL TECHNICAL SERVICE OF THE MANUFACTURER AEG-ELECTROLUX-ZANUSSI-CORBERO so we do not make interventions in appliances under Manufacturer’s warranty.” [Panelist’s own translation] This statement is in a font of the same size as the surrounding text.

Near the bottom of the web page, it is prominently stated in large bold font that: “no somos…SERVICIO TECNICO OFICIAL ELECTROLUX MALLORCA.” In English this is: “We are not… OFFICIAL TECHNICAL SERVICE ELECTROLUX MALLORCA”. [Panelist’s own translation]

At the bottom of this same page, it is stated immediately after a prominent symbol with a skull above two crossed cutlasses in the form of a flag, in large bold font the words: “Logotipos AEG ELECTROLUX ZANUSSI CORBERO Mallorca Service propiedad de sus legítimos dueños, se muestran a modo informativo”. This means in English: “Trademarks AEG ELECTROLUX ZANUSSI CORBERO Mallorca Service property of its legitimate owners, shown for information”. [Panelist’s translation]

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark ELECTROLUX. The Complainant argues first that the dominant part of the disputed domain name comprises the word “Electrolux”, which is identical to the registered trademark ELECTROLUX, which has been registered by the Complainant as a trademark and in domain names in numerous countries all over the world. Second, it is argued that anyone who sees the disputed domain name is bound to mistake it for a name related to the Complainant and the likelihood of confusion includes an obvious association with the trademark of the Complainant. Third, it is stated that the addition of the top-level domain (Tld) “.com” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the disputed domain name and is therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity of the trademarks. Fourth, it is submitted that the addition of “mallorca” to a trade or service mark is legally inconsequential and does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

With respect to the Respondent having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Complainant notes that it has not found the Respondent to have any registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the disputed domain name. The Complaint states that the Respondent has been granted no license or authorization of any other kind by the Complainant to use the Complainant’s trademark. Nor, it is stated, is the Respondent an authorized dealer of the Complainant’s products or has it ever had a business relationship with the Complainant. The Complainant has also not found anything that would suggest that the Respondent has been using Electrolux in any other way that would give it any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Complainant submits that the Respondent is today not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain name is currently connected to a web site offering repair services for Electrolux products. The Complainant argues that, by doing this, the Respondent is misleading Internet users to a commercial web site and consequently, the Respondent is tarnishing the trademark ELECTROLUX. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent is trying to sponge off the Complainant’s world famous trademark. The Complainant also argues that although there is a comment in Spanish on the website that the trademarks are the “property of its legitimate owner”, this does not clearly state who the owner is of the trademarks. Finally, it is argued that there are a number of similar cases in which panelists have found that the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use any of its trademarks or to apply for or use any domain name incorporating those trademarks, it is clear that no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could be claimed by Respondent.

It is also claimed by the Complainant that there is no visible disclaimer that the website is not endorsed or sponsored by the Complainant to explain the non-existing relationship with the trademark holder.

With respect to establishing that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, the Complainant emphasizes that its trademark ELECTROLUX has the status of a well-known and reputed trademark with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the whole community and throughout the world, including that awareness of the trademark is to be considered, in the whole community in general, to be significant and substantial. The Complainant argues first, that the failure of the Respondent to respond to the letter of demand from the Complainant supports an inference of bad faith. It is also submitted that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

Quotes from previous UDRP decisions were put forward by the Complainant, apparently to contend that bad faith is demonstrated by an intention to trade on the Complainant’s reputation, as shown by factors such as, (1) the disputed domain name and the content of the website to which it devolves is calculated to confuse Internet users that the Respondent is an authorised repairer or dealer of the Complainant’s goods when this is not the case, (2) the use of the Complainant’s trade mark as the dominant part of the disputed domain name is intended to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for the Complainant’s products, (3) the look and feel of the Respondent’s website to which the disputed domain name devolves recreates the look and feel of the Complainant’s official website, and (4) the absence of disclaimers disclosing the lack of any relationship between the parties. It is indicated, although not clearly submitted, that these four factors (in combination or individually), apparently together with the arguments raised in the preceding paragraph, show that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. The Complainant then concludes that this shows the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion And Findings

Although the disputed domain name is partly in Spanish and the website to which it devolves is also in Spanish, the language of the Registration Agreement is in English so that, in accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, the language of this administrative proceeding is English.

Pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a), the Complainant must prove that (a) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (b) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and (c) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name is made up of two names, namely “Mallorca” being the Spanish spelling of the largest of the Balearic Islands in Spain, and “Electrolux” being identical to the Complainant’s trademark. At first sight an Internet user would likely consider that the disputed domain name concerned the trademark of the Complainant somehow connected with the island of Mallorca. The two together (trademark and geographic name) could easily lead the reader to think that the disputed domain name was the trademark connected in some way to the geographic location where the trademark holder was associated or present. In the absence of any other evidence or argument from the Respondent, the Panel accepts that the disputed domain name could be considered as a name related to the Complainant and/or is likely to mistakenly confuse the reader as having some geographic association with the trademark of the Complainant when in fact it did not. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademark of the Complainant.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In the absence of any submission from the Respondent, the Panel accepts that the Respondent is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant’s products and has never had a business relationship with the Complainant.

The Complainant affirms and provides evidence that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name so as to devolve to a webpage in Spanish. This webpage offers to provide repair services in Mallorca of Electrolux and other branded domestic appliances. The website of this after-sales repair service centre, to which the disputed domain name devolves, names a number of brands (including Electrolux) of domestic electrical appliances with which the Respondent apparently has experience in repairing.

The Policy at paragraph 4(a)(ii) requires the Complainant prove that the Respondent has “no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name”.

The Complainant submits that the use of the trademark in the disputed domain name is a use for which the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests. The question arises whether an independent after-sales repair center in Mallorca for Electrolux and other brands of domestic appliances, can have a legitimate interest in the domain name <electroluxmallorca.com>. This question particularly arises when one of the brands that the service center repairs is the Electrolux brand (as shown by the evidence submitted by the Complainant). Put another way, a question that arises is, if the Respondent has a legitimate interest in listing Electrolux as one of the brands of appliances with which it has experience in repairing, does the Respondent also have a legitimate interest in including the Electrolux trademark in a domain name? It may be a fair use of a trademark to list that trademark as one of the products with which the Respondent has experience repairing. There may be an inconsistency in (a) accepting that the Respondent does not have any legitimate interest in using Electrolux as part of the disputed domain name, but (b) the Respondent would have a legitimate interest in using Electrolux on the website to which the disputed domain name devolves to promote after-sales repair services for Electrolux products.

It appears that the Respondent has, prior to notice of the domain name dispute, been using “Electrolux” and “Mallorca” in connection with an offering of repair services for Electrolux branded appliances. It could very well be concluded (based on the evidence provided by the Complainant) that, before any notice of the dispute, the Respondent used a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of after-sales repair services. This might satisfy the Policy at paragraph 4(c)(i) sufficient to demonstrate the Respondent’s legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the previous ABElectrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao, WIPO Case D2011-0729 concerning the domain name <servicio-tecnico-electrolux.com> shows the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s rights in the trademark ELECTROLUX prior to registration of the disputed domain name on January 19, 2013.

The Policy at paragraph 4(c)(i) provides that the Respondent’s rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name can be proven based on the use by the Respondent of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of services. It is noted that the offering of goods and services must be bona fide. A “bona fide use of the disputed domain name” as stated by the Complainant, is not the relevant test to show a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Rather, the test of when a respondent could have a legitimate interest in a domain name, is use of the domain name “in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services”. The offering of after-sales repair services for Electrolux (and other) branded appliances appears to be a bona fide offering of such repair services. The Respondent may, in such circumstances, therefore have a legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

From the evidence provided by the Complainant on the website to which the disputed domain name devolves, there are four references at the top, in the middle, and at the end of the webpage that the Respondent (1) is a technical service independent of the manufacturer ELECTROLUX, (2) is not an official technical service of the manufacturer Electrolux, and (3) that the trademark Electrolux is the property of its legitimate owners. It can be concluded then, that even if a consumer might be initially mistaken as to the affiliation of the disputed domain name, such consumer will likely quickly see from the website (to which the disputed domain name devolves) that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant and is offering independent after-sales repairs of Electrolux and other brand appliances. These circumstances and conduct of the Respondent in use of the disputed domain name tend to suggest that the Respondent could have a legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name.

It will be remembered that a finding that any one of the three circumstances in the Policy Paragraph 4 (c) demonstrating rights to and legitimate interest in the disputed domain name must be “proved based on [the Panel’s] evaluation of evidence presented…” The Panel must therefore, evaluate all the evidence presented to determine whether it is proven that the offering of goods and services is bona fide or not.

Other cases, notably OKI Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc WIPO Case D2001-0903, (the “Oki Data Case”) provide useful criteria, but do not purport to be exhaustive statements, of when an offering of goods or services is “bona fide” so that a respondent can be found to have a legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Oki Data case was directed at “the difficult question of whether an authorized sales or service agent of trademarked goods can use the trademark at issue in its domain name.” While this case is somewhat different in that it concerns an unauthorized repair service, the analysis in the Oki Data case can nevertheless be helpful when assessing whether a service offering is bona fide or not. The Oki Data case considered four circumstances that indicate a respondent authorized agent had not demonstrated its service offering was “bona fide” within the meaning of the Policy Paragraph 4(c)(i).

The Panel in the Oki Data case assessed whether (a) the respondent was actually offering the goods or services at issue, (b) the respondent was using the site to sell only the trademarked goods because it could be otherwise using the trademark to bait internet users and then switch them to other goods, (c) the site is accurately disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner, and (d) the respondent is not trying to corner the market in all domain names thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.

The Complainant states that the Respondent is using the website to which the disputed domain name devolves to offer repair services for Electrolux products. However, the Complainant makes no allegation or provides any evidence (1) that the Complainant provides repair services that compete with services offered by the Respondent, and (ii) neither is there any allegation that the Respondent is using the relevant website to sell goods not the trademark of the Complainant.

Clearly the Respondent is offering repair services for Electrolux appliances. It is unclear however, if the website to which the disputed domain name devolves, is being used to sell goods other than trademarked goods of the Complainant. Indeed there is no allegation of any sale or offering of any goods by the Respondent using the website. The website, near the top of the webpage, indicates that the Respondent is a “Distribuidor Autorizado: PHILIPS”, “Yantron Repuestos y Accesorios para electrodomesticos del Hogar Recambios y Accesorios”. In English: “Authorized Distributor: PHILIPS”, “Yatron Parts and accessories for household electrical goods”. [Panelist’s translation]. There is also further down the page a stylized version of the word “Fulgor”. To this Panel, those references are less prominent by comparison to the Complainant’s trademark at the site. Moreover, the Complainant makes no mention of these in the Complaint so the Panel can make no finding as to these references on the website. In the absence of any allegation that the Respondent is selling goods with a trademark not that of the Complainant and no allegation that the Respondent is selling services in competition with services sold by the Complainant, it cannot be concluded in the particular circumstances of this case that use of the ELECTROLUX mark in the disputed domain name or on the website was to switch an Internet user from goods and services supplied by the Complainant to goods and services sold by others. Thus, no finding of ‘bait and switch’ can be made.

The third consideration in the Oki Data case was whether the relevant website accurately disclosed the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner. This seems to be done on the website with (i) at the top of the page a statement “Aeg-Electrolux-Zanussi-Corbero Servicio Tecnico extra Oficial Mallorca”, in English “Aeg-Electrolux-Zanussi-Corbero Non Official Technical Service Mallorca” [Panelist’s translation], (ii) at the middle of the page it states that “No somos Servicio Oficial del Fabricante AEG-Electrolux-Zanussi-Corbero por lo que no realizamos intervenciones en Electrodomesticos en Garantia de Fabrica”, and “Servicio Tecnico Independiente del Fabricante para AEG - Electrolux - Zanussi - Corbero en Mallorca”, and “no somos Servicios Technics Oficial Electrolux Mallorca”, and (iii) at the end of the page there is a prominent flag with skull and cutlasses underneath stating “Logotipos…ELECTROLUX…Mallorca propriedad de sus legitimos duenos, se muestran a modo informativo.” Despite these four references to the Respondent’s (non-)relationship with the Complainant, in the Complaint it is only the last that is referred to by the Complainant.

The fourth consideration in the Oki Data case is whether the Respondent is trying to corner the market in all domain names thereby depriving the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. The Complainant brings no evidence and makes no allegation in that regard although there seems to be at least one other case in which the same Complainant and Respondent dispute another domain name: see ABElectrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao, WIPO Case D2011-0729. The Complainant simply refers to this case as one example in a list of many other cases showing illicit domain name registrations by a number of third parties. However, there is no allegation or evidence that the Respondent is attempting to deprive the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.

Having reviewed the considerations raised in the Oki Data case and compared them to this case, the following conclusions can be made. First, there is no allegation or evidence that the Respondent was trying to bait Internet users to a repair service or goods offered by the Complainant and then switch them to the Respondent’s services or other goods. In particular, there is no allegation or evidence by the Complainant that would allow the Panel to make such a finding of “bait and switch”. Further, while it is an arguable, there seems to be enough statements of the Respondent’s (non-) relationship with the Complainant, and these are prominent enough on the relevant website to accurately disclose to a typical Internet user the Respondent’s (non-) relationship with the ELECTROLUX trademark. Such a situation is clearly different to that discussed in ABElectrolux v. Pablo Rodriguez Guirao, WIPO Case No. D2011-0729 involving the same Respondent and Complainant. Finally, there is no allegation or evidence provided that would enable a finding that the Respondent is trying to corner the market in all domain names so as to deprive the Complainant of reflecting the ELECTROLUX trademark in a domain name.

In view of all of the above, there is considerable doubt as to whether it can be concluded that the Respondent has a right or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name or not. The Panel makes no finding with regard to whether or not the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is not necessary to do so given the finding below regarding registration and use in bad faith.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant argues that the failure of the Respondent to respond to the letter of demand from the Complainant supports an inference of bad faith. While this may be one supporting factor to take into account, this alone could not be conclusive evidence of registration and use in bad faith of the disputed domain name.

It is also submitted by the Complainant that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website. The evidence provided by the Complainant however, shows that on the webpage to which the disputed domain name devolves, there are four statements at the top, in the middle and end of the webpage, that the Respondent (1) is an unofficial technical service of Electrolux and other brands, (2) is a technical service independent of the manufacturer Electrolux, (3) is not an official technical service of the manufacturer Electrolux, and (4) that the trademark ELECTROLUX is the property of its legitimate owners. While two of these statements are in smaller font than the surrounding text, the number of times the statements appear and their equal prominence in the middle of the page and prominent flag at the end of the page, together suggest an Internet user would be unlikely to be confused by the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website.

The Complainant submits copies of a webpage in Chinese but gives no reason for doing so. A copy of a webpage from the domain name <electrolux.com> is also submitted with no reference or reason given for providing a copy of this webpage. Certainly, the webpage to which the disputed domain name devolves does not have the look and feel of these two webpages so there seems to be limited likelihood of confusion because of similarity with other websites of the Complainant.

Even if an Internet user may be looking for the Complainant in Mallorca, it seems that such user will likely quickly see from the website (to which the disputed domain name devolves) that the Respondent is not associated with the Complainant and is offering independent after-sales repair services of Electrolux and other brand domestic appliances. In the Panel’s view, given the four statements mentioned above appearing on the relevant website (as provided by the Complainant) there is limited likelihood that an Internet user would be confused as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website to which the disputed domain name devolves.

While it is not clear, the Complainant also appears to argue that bad faith is demonstrated by an intention to trade on the Complainant’s reputation by using a domain name that includes the Complainant’s trademark. It is equally likely however, that rather than intending to trade on the Complainant’s reputation, the Respondent intended to attract the attention of owners of Electrolux appliances that may need after-sales repair, irrespective of the Complainant’s reputation. In any event, there is no specific allegation by the Complainant of the Respondent’s intention to trade on the Complainant’s trademark to the detriment of the Complainant. The intention of the Respondent appears to be to attract customers to an offering of after-sales repair services of Electrolux and other domestic appliances. However, the website to which the disputed domain name devolves, notifies the reader in at least three places that the disputed domain name is that of a repair center independent of the Complainant.

The Complaint makes no allegation that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to support or sell third party products in the same field as the Complainant, although there is a reference to Philips, Yatron and Fulgor without any mention as to what these are. In the absence of any submission by the Complainant on this potential issue however, the Panel makes no finding.

The Complaint states that the Respondent is “trying to sponge off the Complaint’s world famous trademark”, and is “tarnishing the trademark ELECTROLUX”. However, there is no evidence of anything detrimental to the ELECTROLUX trademark or to the business of the Complainant. In particular, the Complainant makes no allegation that the Respondent is in competition with the Complainant. It seems that the Complainant is in the business of manufacturing and selling goods while the Respondent is in the business of only repairing the same goods. As they are in different businesses, the use of the domain name does not appear to be harming the Complainant’s business. Neither is there anything on the relevant webpage or other evidence before the Panel that indicates the Complainant’s trademark has been or might be tarnished by the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name. Detriment suffered by a Complainant could indicate that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, particularly if harm was intended. However, in this case there appears to be no detriment suffered by the Complainant, only a bare allegation of “tarnishing” of the trademark without any explanation of how the trademark may have been tarnished or any evidence submitted of such “tarnishing”.

It appears that the Respondent is an independent repairer of domestic electrical appliances who has included the ELECTROLUX mark in the disputed domain name so that Internet users are aware of the availability of its repair services for that mark of domestic appliance in Mallorca. The Respondent makes it reasonably clear on his website that it is independent of the Complainant so Internet users are unlikely to be confused as to the relationship of the Complainant’s trademark with the Respondent. There is no evidence the Respondent is taking business from the Complainant and neither is there any allegation the Respondent is selling third party products or services on the relevant website. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is harming the Complainant’s trademark or business in any way. In total, the submissions of the Complainant include no or very limited evidence of bad faith and such limited evidence could equally indicate there is no such bad faith. The very limited submissions and evidence of bad faith do not allow a finding by the Panel of bad faith use of the disputed domain name.

In view of all the circumstances mentioned above, the Panel finds the Complainant has not shown that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

Frank R. Schoneveld
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 2013