Westmore · UDRP DecisionElectroilux.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <electroilux.com> to AB Electrolux. It found the domain confusingly similar to the ELECTROLUX trademark because the added letter “i” did not prevent the mark from remaining recognizable. The Respondent had no demonstrated rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on the well-known character of the mark, passive holding of the inactive domain, and the Respondent’s failure to answer the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.
The timeline behind electroilux.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind electroilux.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward single-letter typographical variation combined with passive holding. The case is particularly useful because the Panel linked the mark’s well-known status, the Respondent’s location, domain inactivity, and silence after a cease-and-desist letter to findings of both knowledge at registration and bad-faith use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION AB Electrolux v. Noah Case No. D2018-1067 1. The Parties The Complainant is AB Electrolux of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Noah of London, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <electroilux.com> is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2018. On May 15, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 15, 2018, 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 May 17, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 6, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 7, 2018. The Center appointed Andrea Mondini as the sole panelist in this matter on June 8, 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 The Complainant is a leading manufacturer of cleaning, kitchen and professional appliances, selling more than 60 million products to customers in more than 150 countries. The Complainant is the owner of several registrations for the trademark ELECTROLUX in numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union trade mark ELECTROLUX No. 000077925, registered on September 16,1998, that covers services in classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 35 and 37. The disputed domain name was registered on January 28, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends in essence: - That the disputed domain name <electroilux.com> is confusingly similar to its well-known trademark ELECTROLUX because it incorporates this trademark in its entirety, whereas the insertion of the letter “i” between “electro” and “lux” does not suffice to avoid confusing similarity; - That the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, because there is no bona fide use of the disputed domain name, considering that it resolves to an inactive website and that a search conducted by the Complainant did not reveal any rights that the Respondent might have in the disputed domain name; - That on February 27, 2018, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, but that the Respondent did not react; - That the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because it must have been aware of the reputation of the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX; - That the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad faith by failing to respond to the cease and desist letter and passively holding the disputed domain name which incorporates the well-known mark ELECTROLUX. B. Respondent The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements: (i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown that it holds (among others) the European Union trade mark ELECTROLUX No. 000077925, registered in 1998, that covers services in classes 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 35 and 37. The trademark ELECTROLUX is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name <electroilux.com>. Considering that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” as such is disregarded under the confusing similarity test, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, because the insertion of the letter “i” between the word elements “electro” and “lux” does not suffice to avoid confusing similarity. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends, credibly, that it conducted a search which did not reveal any rights that the Respondent might have in the disputed domain name. There is no relationship whatsoever between the Complainant and the Respondent. The Complainant has further shown that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. In the absence of any Response, the Panel concludes that there is no indication of any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. None of the other circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy are applicable. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel considers the trademark ELECTROLUX to be well known (see, e.g. , Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Mister Manager , WIPO Case No. D2008-0823 , <electrolux-appliance.com>). Considering that the Complainant’s ELECTROLUX trademark is well known in numerous countries, including the United Kingdom where the Respondent is domiciled, the Panel concludes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and that it registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel also holds that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name, which incorporates the Complainant’s well-known trademark ELECTROLUX, constitutes use in bad faith ( Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows , WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 ). The fact that the Respondent failed to answer to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter of February 27, 2018 reinforces a finding of bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under 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 disputed domain name <electroilux.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Andrea Mondini Sole Panelist Date: June 11, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around electroilux.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.