WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AB Electrolux v. Domain Admin Whois Privacy Corp.

Case No. D2018-2685

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Domain Admin WhoIs Privacy Corp. of Nassau, New Providence, Bahamas.

2. The Domain Names and Registrar

The disputed domain names <electrolux-help.com>, <electrolux-supports.com>, <help-electrolux.com> and <zanussi-help.com> are 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 November 22, 2018. On November 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 26, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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 paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018.

The Center appointed Irina V. Savelieva as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 2019. 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, AB Electrolux, is a Swedish joint stock company founded in 1901 and one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen as well as cleaning products and floor care products. Having started out with the sale of a single vacuum cleaner, after 90 years of innovations and acquisitions, Electrolux is now one of the global leaders in home and professional appliances.

The Electrolux brand is the Complainant’s flagship brand for kitchen and cleaning appliances for both consumers and professional users. In 2016, Electrolux had sales of SEK 121 billion and about 55,000 employees (“www.electroluxgroup.com/en/company-overview-271”).

The Complainant is the owner of the registered well-known trademark ELECTROLUX as a word and image/logo mark in several classes in more than 150 countries all over the world including the Russian Federation. The Complainant has a strong business presence in the Russian Federation, through its business unit in Moscow (“www.electrolux.ru/support/support/contact-us”) as well via its official licensing partners and service desks with its local website: “www.electrolux.ru”.

The Complainant further owns the rights for the ZANUSSI trademark through their wholly owned subsidiary Electrolux Italia S.p.A. The ZANUSSI brand was founded in 1916 and stands for Italian innovation with flair, and its yellow-black color combination and distinctive logo have made it recognizable throughout Europe and neighboring countries for many decades. In 1984 the Complainant acquired the Italian appliance manufacturer Zanussi making the company the leader in household appliances for consumers and professionals. ZANUSSI is one of the Complainant’s strategic brands and has devoted substantial resources to advertising and promoting its trademark ZANUSSI and is a market leader in goods and floor care products in Europe which is well-known in the Russian Federation with its local website “www.zanussi.ru”.

The Complainant supplied the following relevant information about the registration of its trademarks (see Annex 5.1-5.8 of the Complaint):

The Complainant has registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLD”) and country-code Top-Level Domains ("ccTLD") containing the terms “Electrolux” and “zanussi”, for example <electrolux.com> (created on April 30, 1996), the local domain name <electrolux.ru> (created on July 2, 1998), <zanussi.com> (created on November 17, 1995) as well as the local domain name <zanussi.ru> (created on July 2, 1998) (see Annex 7 to the Complaint). The Complainant uses these domain names to inform potential customers about its ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI brands, trademarks, its products and services.

Due to extensive use, advertising and revenue associated with its trademarks worldwide, the Complainant enjoys a high degree of goodwill around the world, including the Russian Federation, and constantly takes appropriate measures to protect its trademarks and domain names.

The disputed domain names <electrolux-help.com>, <electrolux-supports.com>, <help-electrolux.com>, and <zanussi-help.com> were registered on the following dates respectively: April 5, 2018; June 7, 2018; June 8, 2018 and April 5, 2018 respectively. The disputed domain names used to resolve to webpages in Russian language displaying the Complainant’s ZANUSSI and ELECTROLUX trademarks and offering repair and maintenance services and are currently inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

a) Identical or confusingly similar

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names entirely incorporate the Complainant’s well-known registered trademarks ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI.

Further, the Complainant draws attention to the fact that the disputed domain names also contain the generic words “help” and “supports”. The addition of generic terms or dashes does not differentiate the disputed domain names from the registered trademarks, which was laid out in section 1.8 the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”): “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”.

Moreover, the Complainant points out that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain names as it was stated in section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, as well as in AB Electrolux v. Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. D2016-2416 where the Panel stated that “the addition in the disputed domain name of the descriptive word “service” and the geographic indicator “Lampung” does not dispel the confusing similarity”.

The Complainant, therefore, submits that the disputed domain names should be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademarks ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI in which the Complainant has rights.

b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests

The Complainant has not found that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names and there is no evidence that the Respondent has a history of using, or preparing to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The websites at the disputed domain names were aimed to attract the Internet users to its websites where it offered repair and maintenance services for Electrolux or Zanussi products.

The Complainant draws attention to the fact that the incorporation of the trademarks in the disputed domain names and the Respondent’s layout, including the trademarks ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks, appearing prominently and frequently throughout the websites in connection with the Complainant’s products, strongly suggest that there is a connection to the Complainant and that there is some official or authorized relationship with the Complainant for the purposes of repairs and services within the Russian Federation. Finally, no disclaimer can be found on any page on any of the websites where information is given about the company and its services (see screenshots in Annex 9 to the Complaint).

For the Complainant it is clear that the intention of the disputed domain names registrations is to take advantage of the Internet traffic generated due to the incorporation of the well-known ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks in the disputed domain names. The Complaints further analyses the UDRP practice on the conditions which should be satisfied for a bona fide offering of goods and services as defined in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 and concludes that the Respondent fails to comply with them.

Moreover, the Complains contends that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names creates an overall impression that they are, or are affiliated with, the Complainant. While in fact, the Respondent is not known by any of the disputed domain names, nor has the Respondent made legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of them.

Therefore, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. In addition, the Respondent has been granted an opportunity to present some compelling arguments that it has rights in the disputed domain names but has failed to do so.

c) The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith

The Complainant states its trademark registrations predate the registrations of the disputed domain names and therefore it seems highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the trademarks and the unlawfulness of the registrations of the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Respondent has failed to respond to the communication attempts made by the Complainant, which should also be considered an indication of bad faith registrations.

The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on June 7, 2018 through a cease and desist letter. The letter was sent to the email addresses listed in the WhoIs records (see Annex 10 to the Complaint). In the cease and desist letter the Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of its trademarks within the disputed domain names violated the Complainant’s trademarks rights and requested a voluntary transfer of the disputed domain names. However, no reply was received. The Respondent has disregarded the communication attempt and the notice given by the Complainant. Since the effort of trying to solve the matter amicably was unsuccessful, the Complainant chose to file a complaint according to the UDRP process. It has been mentioned in earlier cases that the failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith, e.g., News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia, WIPO Case No. D2000-1623; Nike, Inc. v. Azumano Travel, WIPO Case No. D2000-1598; America Online, Inc. v. Antonio R. Diaz, WIPO Case No. D2000-1460; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Ferhat TUNALI, FBS (DI_4010121)/SENOL KARAKAYA/PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2010-1791; AB Electrolux v. Begad Negad of Cairo, WIPO Case No. D2014-2092; Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. electroluxmedellin.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Luis Rincon, WIPO Case No. D2014-0487 and others.

From the Complainant’s point of view, the Respondent intentionally chose the disputed domain names based on the registered and well-known ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks in order to generate more traffic to its own business. The Respondent has not published a disclaimer anywhere on any of the websites on the disputed domain names to explain that there is no existing relationship between itself and the Complainant. The disputed domain names were used for service center websites for Electrolux or Zanussi products and the Respondent were using the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites.

Consequently, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent should be considered to have registered and to be using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

The Respondent was given notice of this proceeding in accordance with the Rules both in electronic and paper forms in English language.

However, the Respondent failed to file a response to the Complaint and has not sought to answer to the Complainant’s assertions, evidence or contentions in any other manner. The Panel finds that the Respondent has been given a fair opportunity to present its case and finds no exceptional circumstances why it could not do so; and the Panel will proceed to the decision based on the Complaint in accordance with paragraph 5(f) of the Rules.

The Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. The Complainant must still prove the elements required by the Policy. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed in this proceeding and obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove that the three following elements are satisfied:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Pursuant to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. Moreover, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences as it considers appropriate from the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s assertions and evidence or to otherwise contest the Complaint. In the circumstances, the Panel’s decision is based upon the Complainant’s assertions and evidence and inferences drawn from the Respondent’s failure to reply.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has registered the trademarks ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI worldwide from 1970-ies which represent well-known marks in the area of appliances and equipment for kitchen as well as cleaning products and floor care products. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks. The disputed domain names incorporate ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks in its entirety with difference in adding the short words “help” and “supports” and resulting in disputed domain names <electrolux-help.com>, <electrolux-supports.com>, <help-electrolux.com> and <zanussi-help.com>.

The Panel refers to consistent practice and past UDRP decisions, which confirm that incorporating a trademark in its entirety with addition of other terms does not negate finding a confusing similarity. It was specifically highlighted in the WIPO Overview 3.0 where in section 1.8 it states that “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”.

The words “help” and “supports” incorporated in the disputed domain names make a clear reference to the service in relation to the Complainant’s appliances and equipment and should be considered contributing to confusing similarity. In the Panel view, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks which are reproduced in its entirety and are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names.

Adding the gTLD does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied its burden of proof under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy as the first element of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

Even though the Respondent has not filed a response to the Complaint and has not contested the Complainant’s assertions, the Panel will have to consider whether the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names would indicate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

According to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy the following circumstances, if proved, demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name:

(i) the respondent used or demonstrably prepared to use the domain name or corresponding name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute; or

(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has not acquired trademark rights; or

(iii) the respondent 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 complainant’s marks.

A respondent may show its rights or legitimate interests, non-exhaustively, by producing evidence to support the circumstances under paragraphs 4(c) of the Policy.

By not responding to the Complainant’s contentions, the Respondent in this proceeding has not attempted to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel further notes that there is no evidence that before any notice of the dispute with the Complainant, that the Respondent was using the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services.

According to the Complainant, the websites created by the Respondent in Russian language and linked to the disputed domain names were used to resolve to webpages offering repair and maintenance services and displaying the Complainant’s ZANUSSI and ELECTROLUX tardemarks.

The described use of the disputed domain names above, in the Panel’s view, proves that the Respondent was not involved in bona fide offering of goods and services in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

The Complainant cites a past UDRP case which was directly connected with similar case initiated by the company AB Electrolux in AB Electrolux v. Handi Sofian, Service Electrolux Lampung, WIPO Case No. 2016-2416 regarding the domain name <serviceelectroluxlampung.com>, where the Panel stated that:

“…it is the Panel’s opinion that the disputed domain name selected by the Respondent, particularly when considered in conjunction with the website content, misrepresents the nature of the “relationship” or (lack of) affiliation of the Respondent with the Complainant. The disputed domain name in and of itself could suggest to Internet users that the Complainant has opened and is operating service center in Lampung for the benefit of owners of ELECTROLUX products, or at the very least that the ELECTROLUX service center in Lampung is affiliated with, sponsored, or endorsed by the Complainant. Such affiliation, sponsorship, or endorsement is further reinforced by the content of the Respondent’s website, notably the prominent display of the Complainant’s distinctive ELECTROLUX mark and logo in close proximity to the words “Authorized Service.” In this context, the Respondent’s failure to address the Oki Data requirements is fatal to a claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”

According to Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., supra, the use of a trademark as a domain name by an authorized or non-authorized third party is only to be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy if the following conditions are satisfied:

a) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;

b) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods;

c) the site must accurately disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site, if, in fact, it is only one of many sales agents; and

d) the respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name.

In this respect, the Panel refers to the UDRP case AB Electrolux v. Begad Negad, supra, concerning the domain names <electrolux-egy.com> and <electroluxegy.com> which contains similar circumstances as the current case. The Panel noted in this case that: “The disputed domain names resolve to (commercial) websites which use the Complainant’s (logo style) trade mark and so make a false suggestion of an association or affiliation with the Complainant. While the Panel notes that the Respondent appears to be selling the Complainant’s products, there is no disclaimer disclosing the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. In the result, there is no evidence of use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.”

As the Complainant contests with reference to its evidences, the Respondent fails at least on three elements of the above test: firstly, the Respondent does not publish a disclaimer on any of the challenged websites; secondly, the Respondent presents itself as the trademark owner by using Complainant’s official ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks and logos on its websites; and finally, the Respondent is depriving the Complainant of reflecting its own mark in the disputed domain names.

The above described use of the disputed domain names, in the Panel’s view, proves that the Respondent was not involved in bona fide offering of goods and services in respect of the disputed domain names under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy.

As to paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy, there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names.

The Panel recalls that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in the year 2018; this is long before the Complainant has registered its ZANUSSI and ELECTROLUX trademarks. The ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks and the Complainant’s activity are well-known and highly recognized within its industry.

There is no further evidence that the Respondent is making or has made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Moreover, the Respondent was using the disputed domain names with the purpose of gaining profit. Therefore, paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy does not apply.

The Panel finds the Complainant has established its prima facie case to show that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and, accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy as the second element of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances are deemed to be evidence that a respondent has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith:

(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

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

(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has violated the bad faith provision of the Policy because the disputed domain names have been registered with the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks, worldwide activity and reputation.

The Complainant’s first use and first registration of ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks predate any use the Respondent may have made of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names were registered in 2018 many years after the Complainant’s first use of its name and registered trademarks.

Additionally, the Complainant registered the disputed domain names and began operating its websites under gTLD and ccTLD containing the terms “electrolux” and “zanussi” for over 20 years. The Complainant uses these domain names to inform potential customers about its ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks, its products and services.

The Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademarks, domain names and websites associated with the same before it registered the disputed domain names.

It is the Panel’s view, under the present circumstances, that the Respondent most likely registered the disputed domain names with full awareness of the Complainant’s trademark as well as the goodwill associated with it.

It is clear in the Panel’s opinion that in the mind of an Internet user, the disputed domain names could be directly associated with the Complainant’s trademark, which is likely to be confusing to the public as suggesting either an operation of the Complainant or one associated with or endorsed by it (see AT&T Corp. v. Amjad Kausar, WIPO Case No. D2003-0327).

The Complainant cites a UDRP case directly related to the company Electrolux AB domain name dispute as the Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Ferhat TUNALI, FBS (DI_4010121)/SENOL KARAKAYA/PrivacyProtect.org, WIPO Case No. D2010-1791, where similar circumstances were established as in the current case, the Panel noted that: “The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have known of this trademark when registered the disputed domain names. This is in particular likely as the disputed domain names have been registered well after the Complainant’s trademark ELECTROLUX has become recognized in the world. This is in particularly likely as the mark ELECTROLUX is also well-known in Turkey, where the Respondent is apparently located. It rather appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant, in particular with its products and services. According to the print-outs of the websites linked to the disputed domain names provided as Annexes to the Complaint, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain names to offer services for Electrolux products by creating the false impression that the Respondent is an authorized repair and service center for the Complainant’s products. Not only the disputed domain names but also the content and the design of the websites linked to these domain names give the impression that the Respondent intended to mislead Internet users who may search for official repair services for their Electrolux branded products. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.”

Further, the Respondent has never been granted permission to register the disputed domain names. The Respondent takes advantage of the ELECTROLUX and ZANUSSI trademarks by intentionally attempting to attract visitors to the Respondent’s websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s websites or a product or service on the Respondent’s websites.

As the Complainant cites a past UDRP case with similar circumstances at hand Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. electroluxmedellin.com, Domain Discreet Privacy Service / Luis Rinconwhere, WIPO Case No. D2014-0487, where the Panel stated: “The continuing use of the disputed domain name is clearly confusing to online users who will be attracted by the inclusion of the word ELECTROLX in the disputed domain name, and who will therefore believe that they are accessing a website that is in some way associated with or authorized by the Complainant. This is not the case, and the consumer confusion is further strengthened by the fact that there are services for Electrolux products advertised on the Respondent's website without any disclaimer of association with the Respondent.”

As stated in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.2, to establish a pattern of conduct, the Respondent must infringe a single owner’s rights with multiple registrations or by having a history of multiple registrations involving diversity of trademarks. In this case, the Respondent has registered several domain names incorporating different trademarks.

The Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain names shows the Respondent’s intent to rely on a risk of confusion with the Complainant’s activity and trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain names and website associated with it.

These findings, together with the finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, lead the Panel to conclude that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad faith.

The Respondent’s lack of reaction to a cease and desist letter send by the Complainant to it on July 9, 2018, in the Panel view, is additional evidence of bad faith of the Respondent.

This conduct has been considered as bad faith under the Policy, and other WIPO decisions have also reached the same conclusion, as in Philip Morris Incorporated v. Alex Tsypkin, WIPO Case No. D2002-0946, in which the Panel stated: “It follows from what has been said about legitimacy that the Panel is satisfied that Respondent is using the disputed domain name intentionally to attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of his web site. Pursuant to Policy paragraph 4(b)(iv), this constitutes evidence of both bad faith registration and bad faith use, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii).”

The Panel finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith and, accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy as the third element 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 names: <electrolux-help.com>, <electrolux-supports.com>, <help-electrolux.com> and <zanussi-help.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Irina V. Savelieva
Sole Panelist
Date: January 17, 2019