WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0587 for profilgrupen.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION ProfilGruppen Extrusions AB v. Princemichael Page, Eric LTD Case No. D2019-0587 1. The Parties
The Complainant is ProfilGruppen Extrusions AB of Åseda, Sweden represented by Jonas Wahlund, Sweden.
The Respondent is Princemichael Page, Eric LTD of Johannesburg, South Africa. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Domain Name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 17, 2019. On March 18, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 19, 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 March 25, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 16, 2019.
The Center appointed Alan L. Limbury as the sole panelist in this matter on April 23, 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, a Swedish company, owns and operates under Swedish trademark No. 328152 PROFILGRUPPEN, registered on August 28, 1998. The Complainant develops and manufactures customized aluminum extrusions and components. The Complainant is also the registrant of the domain name , which redirects to its main company website at “”.
The Domain Name was registered in the name of the Respondent on January 5, 2019. Shortly thereafter it was used to send emails to clients of the Complainant, purporting to be sent from the Complainant, informing the clients that the Complainant’s bank details for the payment of invoices had been changed and that payments thereafter should be made to a new bank account, being a bank account that does not belong to the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to and is a misspelling of the PROFILGRUPPEN trademark. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, which was registered and is being used in bad faith.
As to legitimacy, nothing has been found to show the Respondent’s preparations for use, or actual use, of the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Nothing has been found to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name or that the Respondent is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent has been engaged in fraudulent activities.
As to bad faith, through the registration and use of the Domain Name the Respondent is defrauding the Complainant’s clients by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of the Respondent’s emails. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to obtain transfer of the Domain Name, the Complainant must prove the following three elements: (i) the Respondent’s Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and (iii) the Respondent has registered the Domain Name and is using it in bad faith.
Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.
A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, asserted facts may be taken as true and reasonable inferences may be drawn from the information provided by the complainant. See Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Disregarding the specific top-level of the Domain Name, “.com”, which is generally considered irrelevant to this element, the Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s PROFILGRUPPEN trademark, but for the omission of the single letter ‘p’. The Domain Name is clearly confusingly similar to that trademark. The Complainant has established this element. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by the Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the Domain Name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.
(i) before any notice to the Respondent of the dispute, the use by the Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Complaint annexes examples of the emails sent by the Respondent to clients of the Complainant. This evidence clearly supports the Complainant’s contentions. The Complainant’s assertions are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name on the part of the Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. See Cassava Enterprises Limited, Cassava Enterprises (Gibraltar) Limited v. Victor Chandler International Limited,WIPO Case No. D2004-0753. The Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
In the circumstances of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Complainant has established this element. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Having regard to the fraudulent use to which the Domain Name has been put, within days of its registration, it is clear that the Respondent intended to target the Complainant and its trademark when registering the Domain Name and both registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant has established this element. 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury
Sole Panelist
Date: April 24, 2019

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy