Westmore · UDRP DecisionZanussiservice.online
The Panel ordered transfer of <zanussiservice.online>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ZANUSSI trademark, that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because its maintenance-services website created a misleading impression of affiliation without disclosing the lack of a relationship, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith to attract consumers for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP.
The timeline behind zanussiservice.online
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 zanussiservice.online — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that a domain combining a trademark with a service-related term may remain confusingly similar and that an unauthorized repair or maintenance website will not necessarily establish a legitimate interest. The lack of clear disclosure of independence, combined with use of the trademark owner’s logo and services directed specifically at the branded products, supported both the failure of the Oki Data test and a finding of commercial-gain bad faith.
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. Mohamed Hashim Case No. D2019-1822 1. The Parties The Complainant is AB Electrolux, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Mohamed Hashim, Egypt. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <zanussiservice.online> is registered with Domain.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2019. On July 30, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 30, 2019, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 31, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on August 5, 2019. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 9, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 29, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 30, 2019. The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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 a producer of appliances and equipment of kitchen, floor care and cleaning products. The Complainant owns registration no. 258519 for the trademark ZANUSSI in Arabic registered in Egypt on September 24, 2013 as well as registration no. 1201466 for the international trademark ZANUSSI (in English) registered on March 6, 2014. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on October 15, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers service for ZANUSSI products. The disputed domain name reproduces the logo of the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends being a leading producer of appliances and equipment of kitchen, floor care, and cleaning products. The trademark ZANUSSI was created in 1916 and is currently owned by the Complainant through its subsidiary Electrolux Italia SpA. The Complainant has registered domain names that include the trademark ZANUSSI and has registered the trademark ZANUSSI in Egypt, and owns a transliteration of the trademark into the Arabic language. The disputed domain name was registered on October 15, 2018 and incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the generic term “service” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. The use of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.online” can be ignored. The Complainant therefore contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the intention behind registering the disputed domain name is to attract Internet traffic to Respondent’s website which offers repair services. The Respondent has additionally used the logo of the trademark ZANUSSI and the same color scheme in order to come across as the Complainant. The Complainant invokes the test set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and argues that its conditions are not met. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. First of all, there is no evidence of use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In addition, the Complainant never granted the Respondent the right to register the disputed domain name. The Respondent is taking advantage of the trademark ZANUSSI and attempting to attract Internet users to its website by creating confusion with the Complainant and has not published a disclaimer on its website explaining that it is not connected with the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for the trademark ZANUSSI, including in Egypt in Arabic and Latin script. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark ZANUSSI. The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark ZANUSSI combined with the term “service”, which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the trademark ZANUSSI. The gTLD “.online” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes that the Respondent is offering maintenance services for ZANUSSI products, without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant, thus creating the misleading impression that it is affiliated with the Complainant. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods and services within the meaning of the Policy. The Panel is also of the view that the requirements of the Oki Data test have not been met in the case at hand. Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark ZANUSSI is used in connection with a website, which offers services for ZANUSSI branded products. Furthermore, the trademark ZANUSSI has been in use for a century and is well known. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 <zanussiservice.online> be transferred to the Complainant. Nayiri Boghossian Sole Panelist Date: September 20, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around zanussiservice.online
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.