Complainant is Haahtela Oy, Finland, represented internally.
Respondent is Matti Haahtela, Haahtelan Imupojat, Estonia.
The disputed domain names <haahtela.info>, <haahtela.live>, <haahtela.net> and <haahtela.org> are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 2, 2021. On July 2, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on July 9, 2021, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on July 13, 2021.
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 July 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 4, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of Respondent’s default on August 5, 2021.
The Center appointed Ingrida Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2021. 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.
Complainant is the parent entity of a group of Finnish companies operating in the fields of project and construction management, and human-resources software. All these companies operate under the HAAHTELA mark, which has been duly registered by Complainant as follows:
- International Trademark No. 1166478 for HAAHTELA (word mark), registered on March 27, 2013 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42;
- European Union Trademark 011228831 for HAAHTELA (word mark), registered on June 12, 2013 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42;
- United States Trademark No. 4669108 for HAAHTELA (word mark), registered on January 13, 2015 for goods and services in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41 and 42.
Complainant operates business websites under the domain names <haahtela.com>, <haahtela.eu> and <haahtela.fi.>
The disputed domain names were registered by Respondent on May 25, 2021. They all redirect to a website displaying graphic pornographic images. The record contains copies of police reports in Finnish that appear to be connected with the disputed domain names.
Complainant requests that the Language of Proceedings be Finnish for the following reasons: Complainant is a Finnish company based in Helsinki, Finland. According to public information, Respondent’s residence is also in Finland, implying that Respondent is familiar with Finnish. Finally, several of the Annexes are in Finnish.
Complainant’s contentions regarding the disputed domain names may be summarized as follows:
Under the first element, Complainant states that it is the proprietor of the registered HAAHTELA trademark and that the disputed domain names are identical to it. Moreover, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the domain names under which Complainant conducts its business. Complainant was founded in 1985 and today has more than 160 employees and annual revenues of approximately EUR 25 million.
Under the second element, Complainant states that there is no evidence that Respondent is using or making preparations to use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The disputed domain names resolve to a website offering inappropriate adult entertainment. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, which were registered only in May 2021. Respondent has no trademark rights, has no relationship with Complainant, and was not authorized by Complainant to register and use the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that Complainant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
Under the third element, Complainant states that the disputed domain names mislead Internet users into believing that there is an association between those sites and Complainant. Respondent is passively holding the websites, as there is no connection between the content of the adult websites and Complainant’s mark. One of the disputed domain names, <haahtela.net>, had previously been registered by Complainant but the registration had inadvertently been permitted to lapse. Therefore, Internet users seeking information about Complainant would reach Respondent’s sites.
On May 25, 2021, Complainant was the subject of an attempted telephone scam by a third party that offered to register the disputed domain names in the name of Complainant. Complainant did not reach agreement with the caller, who suggested that the domain names were being sought by another party that wished to use them for adult entertainment. The domain names were subsequently registered by Respondent. Complainant believes that the party offering the domain names to Complainant is connected to Respondent. Such behavior is suspicious and Respondent has offered no rational reasoning for registering the disputed domain names.
Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain names.
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.
Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
Rule 11(a) provides that “unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding”. The Panel may also order that any documents submitted in a language other than that of the proceeding be translated.
As noted by previous UDRP panels, paragraph 11 of the Rules must be applied in accordance with the overriding requirements of paragraphs 10(b) and 10(c) of the Rules that the parties are treated equally, that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and that the proceeding takes place with due expedition. See, for example, Fondation Le Corbusier v. Monsieur Bernard Weber, Madame Heidi Weber, WIPO Case No. D2003-0251.
In deciding whether to allow the proceedings to be conducted in a language other than the language of the Registration Agreement, and to require Complainant in an appropriate case to translate the Complaint into the language of that agreement, the Panel must consider all relevant circumstances, including whether Respondent is able to understand and effectively communicate in the language in which the Complaint has been made and would suffer no real prejudice, and whether the expenses of requiring translation and the delay in the proceedings can be avoided without at the same time causing injustice to the parties (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“ WIPO Overview 3.0”) section 4.5.1).
In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is English, which is therefore the default language of proceedings pursuant to the Rules. The Complaint and nearly all the annexes thereto have been filed in English, and the Complaint has been notified to the Parties in English. Complainant has demonstrated familiarity with English. Respondent has not submitted any Response and has not provided any information concerning language ability. The police reports submitted by Complainant are the only case materials that are not available in English, but the Panel is satisfied that the matter may be resolved based on the other materials in the record. To avoid unnecessary delay and expense, the Panel orders that the language of proceedings continue in English; this Decision has been rendered accordingly.
Complainant has provided evidence establishing that it has trademark rights in the HAAHTELA mark through registrations in the European Union, United States and internationally. Complainant thereby satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of standing to file a UDRP case. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.2.1.
In comparing Complainant’s HAAHTELA mark with the disputed domain names, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are identical to Complainant’s mark, as they comprise Complainant’s HAAHTELA mark in its entirety and without any alteration.
It is the well-established view of UDRP panels that gTLDs, in this case, “.info”, “.live”, “.net”, and “.org”, are viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1, and cases cited thereunder).
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the first element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
The Panel finds that the evidence submitted by Complainant establishes a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized by Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Furthermore, the disputed domain names are all identical to Complainant’s mark, thereby suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. Such use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests. See, for example, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1.
Pursuant to WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1, and cases thereunder, where Complainant makes out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent has not proved rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names, or that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish Respondent’s rights therein. There is no evidence of legitimate non-commercial use. Rather, the disputed domain names resolve to a website displaying graphic pornographic material with no connection to the HAAHTELA marks. Further, the case materials indicate that Complainant was targeted by a scheme to sell the domains to Complainant for above-market rates. Such use cannot establish rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.2, and cases cited thereunder.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established the second element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation”, are evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) Respondent has registered the disputed 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 Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the disputed domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.
The Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant provides uncontroverted evidence that the HAAHTELA mark belongs to it. Complainant has registered and used this mark for several decades. UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith on the part of Respondent. In this case, the domain names all redirect to a different website with no connection to Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. Respondent has not provided any information that would rebut this presumption.
The Panel finds that Respondent has demonstrated bad faith by using the disputed domain names to redirect to a website displaying graphic pornographic material. Said website has no connection to Complainant’s Mark. A number of other facts indicate bad faith. First, one of the disputed domain names had previously been registered by Complainant and was obtained by Respondent following a lapse of registration. Second, Complainant was addressed by a party seeking to sell it the disputed domain names for a sum exceeding the costs of registration. It is more likely than not that this party was associated with Respondent. Finally, Respondent shielded its identity. Such circumstances clearly indicate bad faith in registration and use of the disputed domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1 and cases cited thereunder.
The Panel therefore finds that Complainant has established the third element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.
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 <haahtela.info>, <haahtela.live>, <haahtela.net> and<haahtela.org> be transferred to Complainant.
Ingrida Kariņa-Bērziņa
Sole Panelist
Date: August 31, 2021