AB Electrolux v Hays Amos

WIPO Case No. D2022-1726

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AB Electrolux v. Hays Amos

Case No. D2022-1726

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Hays Amos, United States of America (“U.S.”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <casaelectrolux.com> is registered with 101domain GRS Limited (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2022.

On May 12, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 12, 2022, 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 May 13, 2022, 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 amendment to the Complaint on MY 15, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the the due date for Response was June 7, 2022. On May 24 and 27, 2022, an individual acting on behalf of a company sent an email communication to the Center informing that they have received the Written Notice, but that the disputed domain name had been registered using their contact details without their authorization. On May 25, 2022, the Center emailed the Parties, notifying them of the Respondent identity issue. On June 8, 2022, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process.

page 2

The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on June 16, 2022. 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 a Swedish company, founded in 1901, and is one of the world’s leading producers of

appliances and equipment for kitchen and cleaning products, and floor care products, marketed under its
ELECTROLUX trademark.

It is the owner of more than 300 registrations of its ELECTROLUX trademark in more than 150 countries, including four in the U.S., where the Respondent appears to be located. The oldest of these U.S. registrations number 0195691, was registered in 1920.

The disputed domain name was registered on August 9, 2021, and resolves to a web page stating:

“404 NOT FOUND.”

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its ELECTROLUX

trademark, containing its trademark and its entirety, accompanied merely by the descriptive word “casa".

The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain

name, in particular that, to the best of the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent is not generally known

by the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has never granted permission to use its ELECTROLUX
trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise.

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the Complainant has sufficient trademark rights to its ELECTROLUX trademark for the purposes of these proceedings.

It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic

Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) may generally be disregarded when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. The Panel considers the gTLD “.com” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present

case, and finds that it may be disregarded here.

The Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name, rendering

the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, and the mere addition of the
descriptive word “casa” (meaning “house”) in the disputed domain name do not detract from this finding.

page 3

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the

Policy in connection with the disputed domain name.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

It is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by
the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the
requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with
evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented
a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Respondent did not advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.

Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s well-known

ELECTROLUX trademark, carries a risk of implied affiliation. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on

Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.5.1.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the

Policy, in connection with the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. Moreover, the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant first registered and began using its ELECTROLUX trademark. The Panel finds it likely that the Respondent had the

Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The circumstance of the

present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark

was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name are such that the Panel concludes that a finding
of registration in bad faith is justified, in connection with the disputed domain name and so finds.

Although the disputed domain name is not currently being commercially used, it is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy, since the decision in Telstra Corporation v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, that the non-use of a disputed domain name does not preclude a finding of use in bad faith

under the doctrine of passive holding. In the circumstances of the present case, the Panel considers that the Complainant has a legitimate concern in this regard, and finds that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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, <casaelectrolux.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.

/George R. F. Souter/

George R. F. Souter

Sole Panelist
Date: June 30, 2022