WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Finn.No As v. Janis Briedis

Case No. D2015-1043

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Finn.No As of Oslo, Norway, represented by Bryn Aarflot AS, Norway.

The Respondent is Janis Briedis of Jekabpils, Latvia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <norgefinn.com> is registered with eNom (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 18, 2015. On June 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same date, 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.

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 proceeding commenced on July 1, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 21, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on July 22, 2015.

The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on July 28, 2015. 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 is the owner of the domain name <finn.no> and operates its website at that domain name, which is the biggest Norwegian online marketplace. The Complainant's website is specialized in advertisements and services related to sales and purchase of products amongst consumers as well as commercial entities. The Complainant has been on the Norwegian market with its services provided at the website "www.finn.no" since 2000, and in 2010 it had a 100% market share related to classified advertisements for vehicles and real estate.

The Complainant is part of the international media group Schibsted and Schibsted Classified Media. Schibsted has 6,800 employees in 30 countries.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trademarks in Norway consisting of or containing the mark FINN, for various services in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42 since 1998.

The disputed domain name was registered on January 3, 2011.

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <norgefinn.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark FINN. The disputed domain name contains the Complainant's trademark entirely, and the addition of "Norge" merely designates the country of origin as "Norge" is the Norwegian word for "Norway". There is a distinct risk that consumers will believe that <norgefinn.com> is an international initiative of the Complainant and the international media group Schibsted. Consumers will believe that the Complainant owns the disputed domain name, and plans to use it to reach international customers as well as Norwegians.

The Complainant further asserts that there is no commercial link or business agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant has not given consent to the Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name <norgefinn.com> and has neither been able to find any trademarks or other rights belonging to the Respondent which would indicate rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name, nor information that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name <norgefinn.com>.

Finally the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <norgefinn.com> was registered and is being used for the sole purpose of misleading consumers, and hereby take advantage of the Complainant's accumulated goodwill and reputation.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that a complainant must prove each of the following:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(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.

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the burden of proving that all these elements are present lies with the Complainant. At the same time, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a party, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, does not comply with any provision of, or requirement under, the Rules, or any request from the Panel, the Panel shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's FINN trademark and the name of the home country of the Complainant "Norge". The distinctive part of the disputed domain name is thus FINN, and the Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights for the purpose of the Policy. See, inter alia, SODEXO v. Elena Shaffer, WIPO Case No. D2015-0810 <mindfulbysodexo.com> and Migros Genossenschaftsbund v. Thomas WiederkehrWIPO Case No. D2015-0564 <garden-of-migros.com>.

The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) suffix ".com" does not dispel a finding of confusing similarity where it otherwise exists, as it does in the present case.

The Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy are therefore fulfilled in relation to the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is clear from the facts of the case that the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark and given the circumstances of this case, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not rebutted this and both the absence of a Response and the way that the Respondent has been and is using the disputed domain name (see next section) does not support a finding of rights or legitimate interests.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the conditions in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are also fulfilled.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove both registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides an example of circumstances which shall be evidence of registration and use in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or

(ii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location.

Accordingly, for the Complainant to succeed, the Panel must be satisfied that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Given the circumstances of the case and in particular the evidence on record of the extent of use of the Complainant's trademark, the distinctive nature of the mark, the fact that the suffix of the disputed domain name is "Norge" and that the website to which it resolves is in the Norwegian language, it is inconceivable to the Panel in the current circumstances that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant's mark. Further, the Panel finds that the Respondent could not have been unaware of the fact that it chose a domain name which could attract Internet users in a manner that is likely to create confusion.

The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

Also, the Respondent has been and is still using the disputed domain name actively for a website offering services that are in effect identical to the services offered by the Complainant - and in the Norwegian language - it is thus obvious to the Panel that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website as mentioned in terms of Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv).

Noting that the disputed domain name incorporates a registered and reputed trademark, that no Response has been filed, and that there appears to be no conceivable good faith use that could be made by the Respondent of the disputed domain name, and considering all the facts and evidence, the Panel therefore finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy are also fulfilled in this case.

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 <norgefinn.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Knud Wallberg
Sole Panelist
Date: August 10, 2015