Alfa Laval Corporate AB v Volodymyr Luchaninov
WIPO Case No. D2024-4427
•16-12-2024
ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Alfa Laval Corporate AB v. Volodymyr Luchaninov
Case No. D2024-4427
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Alfa Laval Corporate AB, Sweden, represented by Advokatbyrån Gulliksson AB,
Sweden.
The Respondent is Volodymyr Luchaninov, Ukraine.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <alfalaval.homes> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 29, 2024. On October 29, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 30, 2024, 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 (Whois Privacy, Private by Design, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 31, 2024, 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 October 31, 2024.
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 November 4, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 24, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 2, 2024.
page 2
The Center appointed Marilena Comanescu as the sole panelist in this matter on December 4, 2024. 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. Further Procedural Considerations
Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, and also that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.
Since the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine which is subject to an international conflict at the date of this Decision that may impact case notification, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Panel is of the view that it should. The Panel notes delivered.
that the Respondent’s reported mailing address indicates a PO Box located in the city of Kryvyi Rih. The
Panel further notes, however, that the Center also sent the written notice of the Complaint to the Respondent
via the contact form provided by the Registrar, and Notification of Complaint by email to the Respondent at
its email address as registered with the Registrar and to a postmaster email address as specified by the
It is moreover noted that, for the reasons which are set out later in this Decision, the Panel has no serious doubt (albeit in the absence of any Response) that the Respondent registered and has used the disputed domain name in bad faith and with the intention of unfairly targeting the Complainant’s goodwill in its
trademark. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case,
and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a
Decision accordingly.
5. Factual Background
The Complainant, a Swedish company established in 1883, adopted the name Alfa-Laval AB in 1963, and it is a world brand leader within the key technology areas of heat transfer, separation and gas and fluid handling accross many industries, including but not limited to the marine, environment, pharma, hygienic, food and energy sectors.
The Complainant owns over 200 trademark registrations for ALFA LAVAL, such as the following:
- the European Union trademark registration number 018170847 for ALFA LAVAL (word), filed on December 20, 2019, registered on June 24, 2020, covering goods and services in International classes 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11,12,14,17, 22, 28, 37 and 42; and
- the Swedish trademark registration number 6089 for ALFA LAVAL (word stylised), filed on November 5,
1897, registered on December 13, 1897, covering goods in International classes 7, 11.
The reputation of the trademark ALFA LAVAL has been acknowledged by various courts and past UDRP decisions.
The Complainant owns multiple domain names incorporating the ALFA LAVAL trademark, the main online marketing portal being available under the domain name <alfalaval.com>.
page 3
The disputed domain name was registered on October 22, 2024, and, at the time of filing of the Complaint, it was not actively used.
6. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the ALFA LAVAL mark is well-known in many countries around the world, is used for more than 100 years, much valuable and extensively protected; the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark as it incorporates it in its entirety; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the disputed domain name must be considered an obvious case of reputation parasitism of the Complainant’s well-known trademark, not least considering the fact that the disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant’s ALFA LAVAL well-known and highly distinctive trademark, the Respondent is not utilizing the disputed domain name, is hiding its identity, and the underlying registrant revealed by the Registrar is most likely using false name and contact information.
B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
7. Discussion and Findings
Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the
Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.
Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.
page 4
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.
Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.
The composition of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation, being identical to the Complainant’s mark and highly similar to its trade name and main domain name. UDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.
In the present case, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark particularly because it reproduces exactly the Complainant’s mark, company name and domain name, and the trademark ALFA LAVAL predates the registration of the disputed domain name by more than 120 years and is well-known worldwide.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
At the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name was not actively used.
| prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. | Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put, and finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. |
| Further, previous UDRP panels have found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a widely known trademark can, by itself, constitute a presumption of bad faith for the purpose of Policy. See section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. | |
| The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. |
page 5
8. 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 <alfalaval.homes> be transferred to the Complainant.
/Marilena Comanescu/
Marilena Comanescu
Sole Panelist
Date: December 16, 2024
0
0
0