About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC / Aha Tek

Case No. D2021-2813

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Sweden, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Aha Tek, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <ericssonlab.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 26, 2021. On August 26, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 26, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 28, 2021, 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 amended Complaint on August 31, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 September 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 22, 2021.

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 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.

4. Factual Background

The uncontested facts are as follows. The Complainant was founded in 1876, and is a leading provider of communication technology and services around the world. In the third quarter of 2020, the Complainant achieved net sales of SEK 57.5 billion and an operating income of SEK 8.6 billion. The Complainant employs over 99,000 employees worldwide, across six continents.

The Complainant has registered its ERICSSON mark in many jurisdictions including in the Respondent’s home territory of the United States. Most relevant for this matter is United States Patent and Trademark Office registration number 2665187 ERICSSON in classes 9, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, and 42, which proceeded to registration on December 24, 2002.

The Domain Name was registered on January 31, 2019 and, as at the filing of the Complaint and the drafting of this Decision, resolved to the Complainant’s “Ericsson ConsumerLab” website at “www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/consumerlab”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its ERICSSON mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it, and the Domain Name was registered and has been used in bad faith given that the Respondent must have had the Complainant in mind when registering and commencing use of the Domain Name in light of the Domain Name’s redirection to the Complainant’s website. The Complainant also contends that there is a strong likelihood of the Domain Name being used for phishing or other fraud given the presence of mail exchange (“MX”) records in the Domain Name System (“DNS”).

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Where the trade mark is recognisable in the domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.8). The Complainant’s mark is the first and most distinctive element of the Domain Name, and the remainder, apart from the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), consists of the common word “lab” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. The Complainant has satisfied the standing requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant’s mark was registered and well known in many territories, including in the Respondent’s territory, long prior to registration of the Domain Name, as confirmed in numerous UDRP cases (e.g. Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson v. Dailey Wells Comm, WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0005).

The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, the Complainant has certified that the Domain Name is unauthorised by it, the Respondent did not file a Response, and there is no evidence that any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy pertain. The only evidence of use of the Domain Name is its redirection to the Complainant’s website. In MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, WIPO Case No. D2007-1231, the panel held that this type of use cannot confer rights or legitimate interests under any of the provisions of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or more broadly, given that the Respondent’s use is neither a legitimate business in the Respondent’s hands nor a legitimate noncommercial fair use, amounting only to a pointer to the Complainant’s own legitimate business use. See alsoWIPO Overview 3.0 at section2.5.3; and Carrefour v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Robert Jurek, Katrin Kafut, Purchasing clerk, Starship Tapes & Records,WIPOCase No. D2017-2533.

Moreover, the Domain Name, which is composed of the Complainant’s ERICSSON mark in its entirety plus the word “lab” that is related to the Complainant’s business, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant. See alsoWIPO Overview 3.0 at section2.5.1.

The Complainant has thus made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1), and given that no Response was filed, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a famous or widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.1.4). That presumption is not rebutted here.

The redirection of the Domain Name to the Complainant’s website establishes actual knowledge and targeting of the Complainant. UDRP panels have found that a respondent redirecting a domain name to the complainant’s website can establish bad faith insofar as the respondent retains control over the redirection thus creating a real or implied ongoing threat to the complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.1.4). Further, there is a high risk that the Respondent may at any time cause Internet traffic to redirect to a website that is not that of, or associated with, the Complainant (MySpace, Inc. v. Mari Gomez, supra) and may increase customer confusion that the Domain Name is somehow licensed or controlled by the Complainant (PayPal Inc. v. Jon Shanks, WIPO Case No. D2014-0888). Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy is therefore applicable.

The potential for fraud is self-evident, especially given that the Complainant has offered a market research service under the “Ericsson ConsumerLab” for many years, commencing long prior to the registration of the Domain Name, with the Domain Name being confusingly similar to that mark and in fact redirecting to the website for that service offering. The Complainant has presented evidence that the Domain Name has been configured with MX records in the DNS enabling use for email. In the circumstances, there would appear to be no conceivable benefit to the Respondent to be gained by registration and use of the Domain Name in this way other than through some bad faith activity such as phishing (W.W. Grainger, Inc. v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Daniel Thomas, WIPO Case No. D2020-1740).

The Panel draws adverse inferences from the Respondent’s use of a privacy protection service (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.6) and the Respondent’s failure to take part in the present proceeding where an explanation is certainly called for (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 4.3).

The Complainant has satisfied 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 <ericssonlab.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: November 11, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/