WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION De’Longhi Appliances S.r.l v. Delonghi Delong, Delonghi Case No. D2019-0077 1. The Parties

The Complainant is De’Longhi Appliances S.r.l of Treviso, Italy, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Delonghi Delong, Delonghi of Ho Chi Minh, Vietnam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with OnlineNic, Inc. d/b/a China-C (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 15, 2019. On January 15, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 16, 2019, 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 proceedings commenced on January 17, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 6, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2019.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on February 15, 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 is De’Longhi Appliances S.r.l, a company incorporated in Italy. The Complainant is part of the De’Longhi Group. According to the Complaint, The De’Longhi Group is a leading global manufacturer and supplier of portable heaters and air conditioners, small domestic appliances, such as coffee makers, as well as of household cleaning and ironing products.

The Complainant owns a number of registered trade marks for DELONGHI, the earliest of which is International registered trade mark number 498944, registered on August 2, 1985 (the “Trade Mark”). The Complainant is also the owner of numerous domain names which incorporate the Trade Mark, including .

The Respondent is Delonghi Delong, Delonghi of Vietnam. The Respondent did not file a response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 4, 2012. The website at the Disputed Domain Name is being used to resell coffee machines and other related products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following submissions.

Identical or confusingly similar

The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the entirety of the Trade Mark, with the addition of the word “Vietnam”. It is well established that the addition of a geographic term does not alter the underlying trade mark or negate confusingly similarity (see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”)).

Rights or legitimate interests

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because:

- the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. Further, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Trade Mark,

- the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name,

- the Respondent does not own any trade marks associated with the Disputed Domain Name, and

- the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain Name for a legitimate purpose, but rather purely for the purpose of reselling without authorization.

Registered and used in bad faith

The Respondent has attempted to imitate the Complainant’s official website and sell the Complainant’s products without authority as well as competing products. It is therefore highly implausible that the Respondent had no knowledge of the Complainant at the time the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.

The Respondent has attempted to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its Trade marks by copying the Complainant’s website design, color scheme, and pictures. T