Skandia Brands Ab v Support, Sav

WIPO Case No. D2024-0003

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Skandia Brands Ab v. Support, Sav

Case No. D2024-0003

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Skandia Brands Ab, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Support, Sav, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <skandia.life> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Sav.com, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 2, 2024. On January 3, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On January 3, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent (Not Available from Registry) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 10, 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 amendment to the Complaint on January 10, 2024.

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
Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 17, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph
5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response.
Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 8, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Piotr Nowaczyk as the sole panelist in this matter on February 19, 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. Factual Background

The Complainant is a limited company incorporated in Sweden. It operates in the industry of insurance and banking as well as the intellectual property management within Skandia AB group.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous SKANDIA trademark registrations, including:

−	the European Union Trademark Registration for SKANDIA (word) No. 001075076, registered on February 17, 2000;
−	the International Trademark Registration for SKANDIA (figurative) No. 938685, registered on September 24, 2007; and
−	the United States Trademark Registration for SKANDIA (word) No. 6039240, registered on April 28, 2020.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <skandia.se> incorporating its SKANDIA trademark.

The Domain Name was registered on October 17, 2023.

On October 20, 2023, the Claimant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent requesting the transfer of the Domain Name. No response was received.

At the time of submission of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website inviting Internet users to
contact the Domain Name owner to find out more about this domain. As of the date of this Decision, the

Domain Name resolves to a parking page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

First, the Complainant submits that the Domain Name is identical to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

Second, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has neither rights nor legitimate interests in the

Domain Name.

Third, the Complainant contends that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

page 3

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy places a burden on the Complainant to prove the presence of three separate elements, which can be summarized as follows:

(i)      the 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 Domain Name; and

(iii)    the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The requested remedy may only be granted if the above criteria are met. At the outset, the Panel notes that the applicable standard of proof in UDRP cases is the “balance of probabilities” or “preponderance of the evidence”. See section 4.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Under the first element, the Complainant must establish that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

The Complainant holds valid SKANDIA trademark registrations. The Domain Name incorporates this
trademark in its entirety. As numerous UDRP panels have held, incorporating a trademark in its entirety is
sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark (see PepsiCo,
Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS COMPUTER INDUSTRY (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No.

D2003-0696).

The generic Top-Level Domain “.life” in the Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement
and as such is typically disregarded under the first element test. See section 1.11.1 of the
WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s SKANDIA trademark for purposes of the Policy. Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the second element, the Complainant must prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following:

(i)      that it has used or made preparations to use the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to the dispute; or

(ii)     that it is commonly known by the Domain Name, even if it has not acquired any trademark rights; or

(iii)    that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark.

Although given the opportunity, the Respondent has not submitted any evidence indicating that any of the circumstances foreseen in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are present in this case.

page 4

On the contrary, it results from the evidence on record that the Complainant’s SKANDIA trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case record that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the SKANDIA trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name.

Moreover, it results from the evidence on record that the Respondent does not make use of the Domain
Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor does it make a legitimate
noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, at the time of submission of the Complaint,
the Domain Name resolved to a website inviting Internet users to contact the Domain Name owner to find out
more about this domain. As of the date of this Decision, the Domain Name resolves to a parking page. It
does not result from the case evidence that the Domain Name has been used in any other active way to
date.

Finally, the composition of the Domain Name, identical to the SKANDIA trademark, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Given the above, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate, pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s prima facie case. The Panel concludes that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Under the third element, the Complainant must prove that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Bad faith under the UDRP is broadly understood to occur where a respondent takes unfair advantage of or otherwise abuses a complainant’s mark. See section 3.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

Under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, evidence of bad faith registration and use includes without limitation:

(i)      circumstances indicating the domain name was registered or acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the owner of a trademark or to a competitor of the trademark owner, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of- pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

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

(iii)    circumstances indicating that the domain name was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)    circumstances indicating that the domain name has intentionally been used in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with a trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on a website or location.

As indicated above, the Complainant’s rights in the SKANDIA trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name. The Panel finds that the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration. This finding is supported by the content of the Domain Name consisting exclusively of the SKANDIA trademark. Moreover, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s SKANDIA trademark is well known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not ignore the reputation of goods and services under this trademark.

page 5

In sum, the Respondent in all likelihood registered the Domain Name with the expectation of taking advantage of the reputation of the Complainant’s SKANDIA trademark.

Considering the overall circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the Domain Name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. As numerous UDRP panels have held, passive holding, under the totality of circumstances of the case, would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Here, given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s trademark and the implausible good faith use to which the identical Domain Name may be intrinsically put, the Panel agrees with the above.

For the reasons discussed above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under 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 Domain Name <skandia.life> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Piotr Nowaczyk/
Piotr Nowaczyk
Sole Panelist
Date: March 4, 2024