WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LPG Systems SA v. Hosein Sajjadi

Case No. D2019-2904

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LPG Systems SA, France, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Hosein Sajjadi, Denmark.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <endermologiespa.com> and <shirazlpg.com> are registered with CSL Computer Service Langenbach GmbH dba Joker.com (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 26, 2019. On November 26, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 27, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 27, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 2, 2020.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 3, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 23, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 24, 2019.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on January 7, 2020. 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 a number of trademark registrations for the trademarks ENDERMOLOGIE and LPG in many countries around the world. Its registrations date back to the 90s.

The domain name <endermologiespa.com> was registered on October 10, 2017, and the domain name <shirazlpg.com> was registered on October 21, 2017.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should typically be ignored. The domain name <endermologiespa.com> incorporates the Complainant’s trademark together with the generic term “spa”. The use of the term “spa” reinforces the impression that a link exists between the Complainant and the disputed domain name given that the Complainant’s products and treatments are offered in spas. The domain name <shirazlpg.com> includes the Complainant’s trademark together with the geographical term “shiraz”, which does not eliminate confusing similarity. The Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect traffic to a website which offers the Complainant’s treatments and which uses its logos. Hence furthering the confusion.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor has obtained authorization from the Complainant to use its trademarks. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. The Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate, noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain names.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Complainant and its trademarks are known internationally and the trademarks are registered in many countries. The Complainant has been in business since 1995. The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark given that it used them in the disputed domain names to create confusion and further the disputed domain names resolve to a website that includes images similar to those appearing on the Complainant’s website and where the trademarks of the Complainant as well as the logo of the trademark LPG also feature. The Complainant is attempting to attract traffic to its website by creating consumer confusion in order to obtain a commercial gain. The disputed domain names disrupt the Complainant’s business. The Respondent did not answer the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademarks ENDERMOLOGIE and LPG in many jurisdictions. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademarks ENDERMOLOGIE and LPG.

The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s trademarks ENDERMOLOGIE and LPG combined with the generic words “spa” and “shiraz” respectively. Adding these terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the trademarks of the Complainant. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The nature of such additional term(s) may however bear on assessment of the second and third elements.” The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks as part of the disputed domain names.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names resolve to a website which seems to offer a service using the Complainant’s products or similar ones, including images similar to those appearing on the Complainant’s website. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the Policy.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the website to which the disputed domain names resolve offers a service associated with the Complainant’s products, including images similar to those on the Complainant’s website. Furthermore, the trademarks of the Complainant appear on said website. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademarks and has registered and used the disputed domain names comprising the Complainant’s marks with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. Furthermore, in the case of the disputed domain name <endermologiespa.com> the word “spa” reinforces the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks given that it relates to the industry of the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist letter of the Complainant and such conduct is considered as demonstrating bad faith.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 names <endermologiespa.com> and <shirazlpg.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: January 8, 2020