WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION RS Components Limited v. Vietnam Domain Privacy Services / Pham Dinh Nhut Case No. D2018-1181 1. The Parties

Complainant is RS Components Limited of Corby, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom” or “UK”), represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

Respondent is Vietnam Domain Privacy Services of Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam / Pham Dinh Nhut of Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The Disputed Domain Name is registered with April Sea Information Technology Corporation (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 26, 2018. On May 28, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 15, 2018, after several reminders, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. On June 20, 2018, the Center notified the Parties in both English and Vietnamese that the language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name was Vietnamese. On June 24, 2018, Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding, to which Respondent did not reply. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on June 26, 2018 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 the same day. Moreover, a third party sent several email communications to the Center on June 20, 22, 25, and 29, and July 3, 6, 20 and 24, 2018. Complainant also sent an email communication to the Center on July 23, 2018.

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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 27, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 17, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 20, 2018.

The Center appointed Richard W. Page as the sole panelist in this matter on July 31, 2018. 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

Complainant was founded in 1937 and distributes electronics, automation and control, test and measurement, electrical and mechanical components, tools and consumables. Complainant is the UK, European and Asia Pacific trading brand of Electrocomponents plc.

Complainant is the owner of the registered trademark RS COMPONENTS (the “RS COMPONENTS Mark”) as a word and figure mark in several classes in the United Kingdom and as an European Union Trademark (“EUTM”), including without limitation UK Registration No. UK00001255111 registered in 1985 and EUTM Registration No. 001865369 registered in 2003.

Complainant has, through its parent company and its subsidiaries, registered a number of domain names under generic Top-Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”) containing the term “rs,” for example and .

The Disputed Domain Name was originally registered on July 23, 2004. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was acquired by Respondent in 2014. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name has, according to a WhoIs Archive search, been owned by several different owners in the past. Complainant further contends that the Disputed Domain Name entirely incorporates Complainant’s registered RS COMPONENTS Mark, only missing the “s” at the end.

Complainant asserts that the RS COMPONENTS Mark is clearly recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name and that the addition of the gTLD “.com” does not differentiate the Disputed Domain Name from the RS COMPONENTS Mark. Complainant further asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s RS COMPONENTS Mark.

Complainant alleges that, in 2015, an email was sent out by Respondent from the fake email address purporting to be from someone working for Complainant. Complainant further alleges that the email included information about Complainant and requested a wire transfer. Complainant further alleges that email sought to lure potential customers into providing sensitive data and to submitting payment to a foreign bank account not controlled by Complainant.

Complainant argues that by sending the fake email, Respondent was impersonating Complainant’s employee with the intention of attempting fraud on Complainant’s customer. Complainant denies any association with Respondent, which is deceptively misidentifying itself as Complainant’s own employee. Complainant further argues that there can be no right or legitimate interest in holding a domain name for the purpose of furtherance of a fraud through impersonation.

Complainant submits that Respondent cannot claim a right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant explains that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to register the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant further explains that it has discovered Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and that there is no evidence that Respondent has a history of using or of preparing to use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Complainant further submits that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a pay-per-click site featuring sponsored links relating to Complainant.

Complainant avers that Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant further avers that, at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, Respondent was aware of Complainant and of its trademark. Complainant states that this is shown by the use of the mentioned fake email. Complainant further states that Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Name to mimic Complainant’s official domain name.

Complaint believes that Respondent is committing fraud. Complainant cites Respondent’s emails that were signed in the name of Complainant’s employee. Complainant further believes that fraud establishes bad faith registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name.