{ "case_number": "CAC-ADREU-006640", "time_of_filling": null, "domain_names": [ "ikeawilrijk.eu", "ikeaanderlecht.eu", "ikeazaventem.eu" ], "case_administrator": "Lada Válková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Martin Broden (Inter IKEA Systems B.V.)" ], "complainant_representative": null, "respondent": [ "PM Meulenijzer (PM Meulenijzer)" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "The Complainant is Inter IKEA Systems B.V., a company active in the business of furniture and home furnishing. Its business model is based on a franchise system with approved retailers who may use the IKEA trademark. In 2013, the total number of IKEA stores was 345, spread over 42 countries generating annual sales of more than 29.2 billion €. \r\n\r\nThe Complainant has registered IKEA trademark in numerous States, but also as an international trademark, with the USPTO and as a community trademark in several classes listed by the Complainant. The trademark was listed 26 on the Interbrand’s list of best global brands in 2013 and previous panels have recognized that it is very well-known all over the world. \r\n\r\nThe disputed domain names , and have all been registered on July 24, 2013 by the Respondent, named PM Meulenijzer, \r\n\r\nThe Complainant filed a complaint on 7 January 2014 and requested the domain names to be transferred to Inter IKEA Systems B.V.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not confirmed receiving the e-mail notice of the ADR Proceeding by accessing the online platform. The same was sent by post on 28 January 2014 and on 10 February 2014 an advice of delivery proving the delivery of the written notice of the ADR Proceeding was returned to the Czech Arbitration Court. The Respondent has further failed to comply with the deadline indicated in the notification of commencement of ADR proceeding for the submission of a response and has not challenged the appointment of a Panelist.", "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of other pending or decided proceedings related to the disputed domain names.", "discussion_and_findings": "In accordance with Article 21(1) of Regulation 874\/2004 a registered domain name is speculative or abusive and is subject to revocation where that name is identical or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognised or established by national and\/or Community law, such as the rights mentioned in Article 10(1), and where it: \r\na)\thas been registered by its holder without rights or legitimate interest in the name; or \r\nb)\thas been registered or is being used in bad faith. \r\n\r\n\r\n1. The disputed names are confusingly similar to the name recognised by national and community law as a trademark. \r\n\r\nThey incorporate the IKEA trademark in its entirety and add the geographic identifiers ‘wilrijk’, ‘anderlecht’ and ‘zaventem’, which are all generally known to be places were retailers of the Complainant are located.\r\n\r\nAccording to the established case law referred to by the Complainant, there is indeed confusing similarity where the entire mark in question is incorporated into the disputed domain name and where only a generic or descriptive word has been added. See the WIPO Case No. D2010-1919, January 25, 2011, where it was decided that the addition of the term ‘catalogue’ in the domain name was not sufficient to refute the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s IKEA trademark. \r\n\r\nNor does the addition of a geographic term for that matter, as was decided in CAC 6430, , where the panel considered that the addition of “-france” to the Complainant’s business name and to the most distinctive part of its registered community trademark creates confusing similarity between the Complainant’s prior rights and the disputed domain name. \r\n\r\n2. The disputed names have been registered by the Respondent without legitimate interest in the name. \r\n\r\nThe burden of proof regarding lack of legitimate rights or interests rests on the Complainant, but the Complainant only needs to establish a prima facie case, see e.g., Yakult Europe B.V. v. Mark Weakley, CAC 5156, ; Diehl Stiftung & Co. KG, Ralf Kummer v. H. Klomp, CAC 5824 a.o. \r\n\r\nArticle 21(2) of Regulation 874\/2004 provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of how a Respondent may demonstrate a legitimate interest. \r\n\r\nThis may be the case where the Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name or has used or made preparations to use the domain name in connection with the offering of goods or services, while the name Meulenijzer is most certainly not associated with the disputed names. A quick search on Google for PM Meulenijzer at Mere shows a website that lists doctors and pharmacists.\r\n\r\nThis may also be the case where the Respondent is making a legitimate, non-commercial or fair use of the domain name without the intention to mislead consumers or to harm the reputation of a name in which there are rights under national or Community law. But copyright protected material from the Complainant is displayed on the Respondent's website and it contains sponsored links to websites offering coupons and other goods and services beneficial to the Respondent. This is not a legitimate and non-commercial or fair use of the domain names without intent to mislead the consumers as required by the Regulation.\r\n\r\n3. Bad faith may, according to Art. 21.3 (d) be demonstrated where the domain name was intentionally used to attract internet users for commercial gain to the holder of a domain name website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name on which a right is recognised or established, such likelihood arising as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website or location or a product or service on the website or location of the holder of a domain name.\r\n\r\nConsidering the above bad faith within the meaning of Article 21.1 (b) is sufficiently demonstrated.", "decision": "For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs B12 (b) and (c) of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain names IKEAWILRIJK, IKEAANDERLECHT, IKEAZAVENTEM be transferred to the Complainant", "panelists": [ null ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2014-04-30 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "I. Disputed domain name: IKEAWILRIJK, IKEAANDERLECHT, IKEAZAVENTEM\r\n\r\nII. Country of the Complainant: the Netherlands, country of the Respondent: Belgium.\r\n\r\nIII. Date of registration of the domain name: 7 January 2014 \r\n\r\nIV. Rights relied on by the Complainant (Art. 21 (1) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004) on which the Panel based its decision: trademark (word)\r\n \r\nV. Response submitted: No\r\n\r\nVI. Domain names are confusingly similar to the protected rights of the Complainant\r\n\r\nVII. Rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent (Art. 21 (2) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): No\r\n \r\n\r\nVIII. Bad faith of the Respondent (Art. 21 (3) Regulation (EC) No 874\/2004): Yes. The domain name was intentionally used to attract internet users for commercial gain to the holder of a domain name website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a name.\r\n \r\n\r\nIX. Other substantial facts the Panel considers relevant:\r\n\r\nX. Dispute Result: Transfer of the disputed domain names.\r\n\r\nXI. Procedural factors the Panel considers relevant: No\r\n\r\nXII. Is Complainant eligible? Yes", "decision_domains": [], "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }