WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Huhtamäki Oyj v. Uganda Sites

Case No. D2019-2967

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Huhtamäki Oyj, Finland, represented by NLO Shieldmark B. V., Netherlands.

The Respondent is Uganda Sites, Uganda.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <huhtamakigroup.com> is registered with Internet Domain Service BS Corp (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 3, 2019. On December 3, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 4 and 5, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 6, 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 9, 2019.

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 19, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 8, 2020. No formal Response was filed with the Center.

The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on January 27, 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.

An email was received on December 19, 2019, from a third party stating the following: “Sorry for that, account has been suspended”. On January 6, 2020, the center received a communication from the respondent consenting to the requested remedy.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Huhtamaki Oy; is a multi-national provider of food and drink packaging under the HUHTAMAKI trademark. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <huhtamakigroup.com> on June 14, 2019. At the time of the Notification of Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to the Complainant’s website. However, the website has now been suspended.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s company name is Huhtamaki Oy; The Complainant has used the HUHTAMAKI trademark since 1920 in connection with food and drink packaging. The Complainant owns registrations for the HUHTAMAKI trademark in numerous countries, including European Union Trademark No. 3458874, registered on May 26, 2005, United States Registration No. 3112010, registered on July 4, 2006 and International Registration 836259, registered April 26, 2004. All of these registrations were obtained by the Complainant prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant’s use of its mark is depicted at its website “www.huhtamaki.com”. The Complainant sells its products in 34 countries.

Although the disputed domain name is currently suspended, the Respondent had directed the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website. The Respondent sent emails to suppliers and customers of the Complainant, soliciting orders or payments for orders.

The Respondent is not affiliated with, or approved or sponsored by the Complainant.

The Respondent’s fraudulent requests for money or products are in fact criminal activities.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

As a preliminary point, as is noted in the procedural history, an email was received by the Center on December 19, 2019, from a third party stating the following: “Sorry for that, account has been suspended.” The correspondence purports to be from the web host or other service provider to the Respondent and does not purport to be sent on behalf of the Respondent. The Panel therefore has not considered that communication in its findings.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established evidence of use and registration of the HUHTAMAKI trademark. The Complainant’s trademark is reproduced in its entirety in the disputed domain name along with the addition of the entity identifier “group”. The addition does not change the impression of the disputed domain name (and in fact may reinforce the confusion by suggesting that the disputed domain name is related to the Complainant and/or the Complainant’s company or affiliate member firms). See, e.g., Wingstop Restaurants Inc. v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Johnson Millner / Matthew Alvarez, WIPO Case No. D2016-1004.

The Complainant has demonstrated use of the HUHTAMAKI trademark at its website, “www.huhtamaki.com”.

Furthermore, it is standard practice by UDRP panels to disregard the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com”. Therefore, the Panel agrees with Complainant that the disputed domain name, is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second ground to be demonstrated by the Complainant, according to the provisions of the Policy, is the Respondent’s absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, per paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that it is sufficient for a complainant to prove a prima facie case that the respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455, and Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Once a prima facie case is shown, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel is satisfied that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the trademark in a domain name or in any other manner. The Complainant alleges that there is no such connection here. The Panel confirms there is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

In addition, the Respondent has not submitted a substantive reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

Therefore, in light of Complainant’s prima facie case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Complainant’s HUHTAMAKI trademark is sufficiently distinctive and well-known such that, coupled with the absence of any other evidence in the record to the contrary, it is fair to presume that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights. This presumption is also supported by the fact that there is an unrebutted assertion that Respondent had re-directed the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s website.

Additionally, the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name was used to send fraudulent emails from the address [[email protected]] to entities that are allegedly business partners of the Complainant. There are unrebutted allegations that these emails solicited funds or products from these partners, purportedly on behalf of the Complainant.

Furthermore, the Panel may also make negative inferences arising from the Respondent’s failure to respond, and that the disputed domain name registration contains what is apparently incorrect contact info. See, e.g., Sony Kabushiki Kaisha (also trading as Sony Corporation) v. Inja, Kil, WIPO Case No. D2000-1409.

The Panel finds that Complainant has established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, as outlined in 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 name <huhtamakigroup.com> be transferred to the Complainant

Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: February 11, 2020