WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V. v. Mrel Hover Case No. D2019-2013 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Koninklijke Douwe Egberts B.V., Netherlands, represented by Ploum, Netherlands.

The Respondent is Mrel Hover, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Hostinger, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 16, 2019. On August 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 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 August 27, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 16, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 19, 2019.

The Center appointed Eduardo Machado as the sole panelist in this matter on September 26, 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 part of Jacobs Douwe Egberts, an international coffee and tea company, headquartered in the Netherlands that processes and trades in coffee, tea and other foods since 1753. The Complainant’s products are sold throughout Europe and the Middle East, being the Complainant also a market leader in Brazil, Germany, Austria, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania and Ukraine.

The brand JDE, which is an abbreviation of Jacobs Douwe Egberts, originates from the former coffee division of Mondelez International, which dates back to 1895 in Germany.

The Complainant is the owner of trademark rights related to the word mark JDE since 2015, such as Benelux trademark registration No. 0970216, registered on April 22, 2015, and International Trademark registration No. 1248744, registered on April 16, 2015. Said trademark registrations are registered and are being used for goods and services in classes 5, 7, 11, 16, 21, 29, 30, 32, 35 and 43 including coffee and coffee and tea makers.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain names and .

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on April 4, 2019.

The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website and does not even have a working associated IP address. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered marks.

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name reproduces the JDE trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the descriptive term “c0ffee”, a misspelling of the word “coffee” with the digit “0” (zero) replacing the letter “o”. The Complainant further alleges that the addition of the term “c0ffee” is not enough to prevent the association and confusion of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s registered trademarks.

The Complainant continues to argue that the disputed domain name that incorporates the entirety of the JDE mark with the addition of the descriptive term “c0ffee” would not significantly affect the appearance or pronunciation of the disputed domain name and would not minimize the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s JDE mark and would also show the Respondent’s bad faith in the registration of the disputed domain name.

The addition of the term of the descriptive term “c0ffee” even enhances the confusion, since coffee is the main product sold by the Complainant.

The Complainant continues to argue that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name considering that the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name nor has the Respondent made any demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, with the intention to obtain an unfair commercial gain by diverting the Complainant’s costumers.

The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name was registered in 2019, which is years after the Complainant started using and registered its JDE mark in the European Union and the United States. In this sense, the Complainant affirms that the Respondent’s misappropriation of the JDE mark in the disputed domain name is no accident and that the Respondent chose to misuse JDE mark to divert Internet users from the Complainant’s websites by capitalizing on the public recognition of the Complainant’s rights related to the JDE marks and so incur in fraudulent activities, indicating the bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant also argues that the fact that the Respondent did not reply to the cease and desist email sent by the Complainant on May 27, 2019, is