WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Svea Ekonomi AB, Svea Exchange AB v. Christopher Clewehielm / 24Guld i Sverige AB

Case No. D2014-1476

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Svea Ekonomi AB of Solna (the "Complainant 1") and Svea Exchange AB of Stockholm, Sweden (the "Complainant 2"), represented by Groth & Co KB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Christopher Clewehielm / 24Guld i Sverige AB of Solna, Sweden.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <sveaexchange.com> is registered with AB NameISP (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 28, 2014. On August 28, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 28, 2014, 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.

According to information the Center received from the concerned registrar, the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain name is Swedish. Accordingly, the Complainants were requested to provide at least one of the following: 1) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainants and the Respondent to the effect that the proceedings should be in English; or 2) submit the Complaint translated into Swedish; or 3) submit a request for English to be the language of the administrative proceedings. On September 16, 2014, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceedings, to which the Respondent did not reply.

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 in English and in Swedish, and the proceedings commenced on September 23, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 13, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 15, 2014.

The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 2014. 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 1 is a leading actor in northern Europe and has offered both financial and administrative services since 1981. The Complainant 1's service portfolio includes factoring, ledger administration and debt administration. The Complainant 1 has more than 650 employees and offices in ten different countries.

A merger between both Complainants became public on March 20, 2014, after a press release. As a result of the merger, the Complainant 2 registered a change of its company name from Exchange Finans AB to Svea Exchange AB.

The Complainant 1 is the owner of the following trademark registrations:

- SVEA, Community Trademark with registration No. 011546983, figurative, registered on June 14, 2013, in classes 35, 36, 38 and 42;

- SVEA, Community Trademark with registration No. 009173147, figurative, registered on October 29, 2010, in classes 35, 36, 38 and 42;

- SVEA, Community Trademark with registration No. 005050034, word, registered on February 5, 2009, in class 36;

- SVEA, Swedish Trademark with registration No. 0351324, word, registered on December 21, 2001 in classes 35 and 36.

The Complainant 2 is the owner of the following trademark registrations:

- EXCHANGE FINANS, Swedish Trademark with registration No. 0418219, figurative, registered on May 6, 2011, in class 36;

- EXCHANGE FINANS, Swedish Trademark with registration No. 0418217, word, registered on May 6, 2011, in class 36.

According to WhoIs database the disputed domain name was registered on March 20, 2014. An equivalent domain name <sveaexchange.se> was registered on the same date by the Respondent.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

Language of the proceedings

As far as the Complainants are concerned, the registration agreement is displayed in English on the Registrar website. Content of the Respondent's website is presented in English which indicates that the Respondent has knowledge in English. The Respondent's website can also be viewed in both Swedish and English. In addition, English is taught in the Swedish educational system from an early age and therefore Swedes understand and speak English.

Remedies requested

The Complainants request the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant 2.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant 1's registered trademark SVEA in its entirety with the addition of the term "exchange", which is the dominant part of the Complainant 2's trademark EXCHANGE FINANS. The disputed domain name must therefore be considered confusingly similar to the Complainant 1's registered trademark. There is only a very limited ability to distinguish the term "exchange" from the Complainant 1's trademark. Clearly and particularly given the circumstances under which the disputed domain name was registered, the first part of the disputed domain name is intended to refer to the Complainant 1 since the second part does nothing to diminish the likelihood of confusion. The addition of the term "exchange" may actually increase the risk of confusion since the disputed domain name is being used for similar services for which both Complainants' trademarks are registered, but also since the Complainants changed its company name to Svea Exchange AB.

In addition to the above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a combination of the trademarks SVEA and EXCHANGE FINANS, in which the Complainants have rights. Both trademarks are registered prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the circumstances of the press release regarding the merger/acquisition, the immediate domain name registration and the fact that the disputed domain name contains a combination of the Complainants' older registered trademarks, the disputed domain name has to be considered as confusingly similar to the trademarks in which the Complainants have rights.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the name "Svea Exchange". To the best of the Complainants' knowledge, the Respondent is not an owner of any trademark, service mark or company name with a name similar to that of the disputed domain name. The Complainants have not directly or indirectly licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent's use of SVEA trademark or EXCHANGE FINANS trademark in connection with the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is a local Swedish competitor to the Complainants and uses the disputed domain name to attract and divert customers searching for the Complainants. The website, to which the disputed domain name resolves, contains an invisible frame, in which the content from the commercial website "www.24money.se" is displayed. The domain name <24money.se> belongs to the Respondent. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in direct competition to the Complainants and offering similar type of services for which the Complainants' trademarks are registered.

As mentioned above, the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name on the same date as the acquisition and merger was publicly announced. It is clear that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain or misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademarks at issue. The Respondent is also not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

As mentioned above, the Complainants have not directly nor indirectly licensed or otherwise consented to the Respondent's use of the Complainants' trademarks, or combination thereof, in connection with the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name is registered on the very same day as the Complainants publicly announced of its acquisition and merger. It is hardly a coincidence that the Respondent as a competitor registered a combination of the Complainants' registered trademarks as several domain names. It must have been an opportunistic act for profit, conducted with the merger of the Complainants. Thus, the circumstances clearly indicate that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.

The Complainant sent a letter and a copy via e-mail to the Respondent on June 11, 2014 requesting a transfer of the disputed domain name. The e-mail was read by the Respondent on June 11 at 12: 05 PM UTC. The Respondent had at that time not started its use of the disputed domain actively; the website was instead simply used as a standard parking site.

In time after the Respondent received information regarding the Complainants' registered trademarks and company name, the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to its own commercial website "www.24money.se". It is therefore obvious that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainants' registered trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a competing commercial website offering the same type of services for which the Complainants' trademarks are registered. The Respondent has also been fully aware of both the merger and the Complainants' trademarks and business.

The registration and use of the disputed domain name may not only be detrimental to the Complainants' trademarks and business, but also be confusing for consumers. The Respondent has intentionally and for commercial gain attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants' trademarks as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's website or of a product on the Respondent's website.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainants' contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

The language of the proceeding is normally the language of the registration agreement, unless both parties agree otherwise, or the Panel determines otherwise under paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules. The registration agreement that relates to the disputed domain name has been filed in Swedish. The Panel has, however, as said above, the discretion to designate a different language, taking into consideration the circumstances of the administrative proceeding. The Complainants request English to be the language of the proceedings. It can be noted that both the Respondent and the Complainants have Swedish origins. However, the content of the website connected to the disputed domain name can be displayed in English. Therefore, the Panel finds that the proceedings, and by that this Decision as well, shall be conducted in the English language as the Complainants' request.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainants to prove all three of the following elements to be entitled to the relief sought: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Firstly, the Complainant 1 is the holder of four registered trademarks involving SVEA and the Complainant 2 is the holder of two registered trademarks involving EXCHANGE FINANS. The Panel also notes that the Complainant 2 has a company name that reads "Svea Exchange AB". The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant 1's trademark SVEA in its entirety and incorporates the element "exchange" of the Complainant 2's trademark EXCHANGE FINANS, with the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com". According to well established consensus among UDRP panels, the gTLD is generally not distinguishing.

The Panel finds that the terms "exchange" and "finans" separately and individually are descriptive in relevant fields such as credit and business, but distinctive used in combination. Since the disputed domain name incorporates the SVEA trademark in its entirety with the addition of the descriptive term "exchange", the disputed domain name has to be considered confusingly similar to all SVEA trademarks. Additionally, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is also confusingly similar to the Complainant 2's company name "Svea Exchange AB".

In the light of what is stated above, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainants' trademarks. The first element of the paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is thus fulfilled.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

In cases when a respondent fails to present a response, the complainants are still required to make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition ("WIPO Overview, 2.0"), paragraph 2.1., and The Vanguard Group,Inc. v. Lorna Kang, WIPO Case No. D2002-1064 and BerlitzInvestment Corp. v. Stefan Tinculescu, WIPO Case No. D2003-0465. Further, paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, a panel shall draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from a failure of a party to comply with a provision or requirement of the Rules.

The Complainants have asserted that no permission has been granted to the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainants have stated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, which entirely incorporates the Complainant 1's trademark SVEA and incorporates the element "exchange" of the Complainant 2's trademark EXCHANGE FINANS and the company name "Svea Exchange AB", excluding its association abbreviation "ab", in its entirety. The Respondent is also using the disputed domain name for commercial gain and is considered to be a competitor to the Complainants.

Having considered the submissions of the Complainants, and the absence of a formal Response from the Respondent, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not connected with the Complainants or authorized to use any of the Complainants' SVEA and EXCHANGE FINANS trademarks in the disputed domain name. Nor does the Panel find any indications that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, or has rights or legitimate interests in any other way in the disputed domain name.

In the light of what is stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainants have made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainants' allegations. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that the Complainants' trademarks predate the registration of the disputed domain name which incorporates the Complainant 1's trademark SVEA and the first element of the Complainant 2's trademark EXCHANGE FINANS. It can also be noted that the disputed domain name incorporates the company name "Svea Exchange AB" in its entirety, excluding "ab". The disputed domain name is being used to promote competing and similar services as the Complainants'. The disputed domain name is also being used to redirect Internet users to the Respondent's other website. Thus, it seems also clear that the aim of the registration of the disputed domain name was to take advantage of the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainants goodwill. In addition, the Panel also notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on the very same date as the merger between Complainant 1 and 2 was publicly announced. It is not probable that the Respondent took actions with no awareness of the Complainants' trademarks and business. Instead, it appears to be a typical case of cybersquatting. In light of the above, the Respondent can be considered to have been fully aware of the Complainants and their trademarks and business.

In light of these facts, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The third and final element of the Policy is fulfilled.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <sveaexchange.com> be transferred to the Complainant 2.

Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: November 3, 2014