The Complainant is Lasaulec B.V. of Heerenveen, Netherlands, represented by Van Zelm c.s. Advocaten, Netherlands.
The Respondent is Trademark Worx, LLC of Seoul, Republic of Korea.
The disputed domain name <lasaulec.com> is registered with Name.com LLC (the "Registrar").
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on March 25, 2016. On March 29, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 29, 2016, 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 the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on April 12, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on May 3, 2016.
The Center appointed William A. Van Caenegem as the sole panelist in this matter on May 11, 2016. 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.
As indicated by the Complainant on the record and as confirmed by the Panel's independent research, the trademark LASAULEC is registered with the Benelux Trademark Office. The date of registration of the LASAULEC mark is January 1, 2010.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 27, 2010.
According to the Complainant the trademark LASAULEC is unique in the world, and no other organisations use the name or mark. Further the Complainant asserts that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to refer to a landing page which contains advertising links for competing businesses, which will confuse existing customers of the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or authorized the use of its trademark LASAULEC. Nor is the Respondent known by the name LASAULEC or conduct any legitimate business under that name, according to the Complainant.
According to the Complainant several other UDRP cases have been resolved against the Respondent. This demonstrates that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct, preventing complainants from reflecting their trademarks in corresponding domain names. In this case the Complainant is also prevented from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name. The Complainant asserts that it requires the disputed domain name to conduct its business.
Further, the Respondent did not use the mark LASAULEC before the registration date of the disputed domain name (September 27, 2010). According to the Complainant, when conducting a search for the term Lasaulec on the Internet, the Respondent would inevitably come across the Complainant's business. The Complainant previously registered the disputed domain name, but the Respondent registered the disputed domain name when the Complainant's registration expired. A letter of demand from the Complainant remained without response from the Respondent.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent had the intention of selling the disputed domain name for commercial gain.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions.
The Panel holds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's LASAULEC trademark.
The Respondent's LASAULEC trademark is distinctive and has no generic meaning. The Complainant asserts that it has not licensed or authorized the use of its LASAULEC trademark by the Respondent. The Respondent is not known by the name LASAULEC and does not and has not conducted any business under that trademark or business name. The disputed domain name resolves to a page where advertising links for competing businesses are to be found. No legitimate use is made of the disputed domain name, which is identical to the Complainant's trademark, by the Respondent.
Therefore the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant's LASAULEC trademark is distinctive and has no generic meaning. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name at a time when the Complainant was in business and was present on the Internet. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's trademark in its entirety without variation or addition. The practice of registering a domain name that incorporates or consists of a complainant's trademark, to attract Internet users to a webpage displaying links to competing business constitutes a bad faith use of a domain name. The apparent intention of the Respondent is to derive a financial gain from the deceptive impression that the disputed domain name has a legitimate connection with or is operated by the Complainant. The Respondent did not answer the Complainant's letter of demand in relation to the disputed domain name. There is nothing before the Panel indicating that the Respondent has any legitimate reason to incorporate the Complainant's trademark in the disputed domain name.
Therefore the Panel holds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
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 <lasaulec.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
William A. Van Caenegem
Sole Panelist
Date: May 15, 2016