Akademibokhandeln-se.com

The timeline behind akademibokhandeln-se.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Bokusgruppen AB v. Walker CJ Case No. D2025-5064 1. The Parties The Complainant is Bokusgruppen AB, Sweden, represented by Valea AB trading as Rouse AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Walker CJ, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <akademibokhandeln-se.com> is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 5, 2025. On December 5, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (REDACTED FOR PRIVACY) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 12, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint on December 15, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was January 5, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Aaron Newell as the sole panelist in this matter on January 18, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 market-leading retailer in Sweden. It is publicly-traded on the Nasdaq First North Premier Growth Market. The Complainant uses the trademark AKADEMIBOKHANDELN in respect of retail services (both in-sto re and online at “www.akademibokhandeln.se”) f or books, games, toys, stationery and products f or arts and craf ts. Its AKADEMIBOKHANDELN trademark has been in use for over fif ty years with its f irst retail outlet having opened in 1971. Presently the Complainant operates 95 retail outlets throughout Sweden. These are supported by approximately 400 employees, and are estimated by the Complainant to be visited approximately 15 million times per year. The Complainant has protected its AKADEMIBOKHANDELN name with multiple trademark registrations, including Sweden trademark registration no 500718 for the mark AKADEMIBOKHANDELN in classes 9, 16, 28, 30, 35, 41, 43 (word mark, registered on September 23, 2011) and Sweden trademark registration no 500719 f or the mark A AKADEMIBOKHANDELN in classes 9, 16, 28, 30, 35, 41, 43 (logo, registered on September 23, 2011). The disputed domain name was registered on November 13, 2025. The evidence shows that prior to the f iling of the Complaint the disputed domain name loaded a website that resembled the Complainant’s off icial website at “www.akademibokhandeln.se”, featured the Complainant’s AKADEMIBOKHANDELN trademark throughout, and purported to offer identical products to those offered by the Complainant, often at discounted p rices. The Complainant asserts and provides supporting evidence that on December 1, 2025 it f iled a complaint with the relevant Registrar in order to have the website disabled. At the time the Complaint was f iled the disputed domain name did not load any content, and this remains its status at the time of writing this decision. There is no indication in the case file that the Parties have engaged in correspondence with each other, nor any indication that the Respondent has engaged with the Center in respect of these proceedings. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered trademarks because the disputed domain name contains the entirety of its trademark AKADEMIBOKHANDELN, the inclusion of the term “se” is a ref erence to Sweden which is where the Complainant operates and is well known, and there are no f actors that might distinguish the disputed domain name f rom its registered trademark rights; ii) the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent used the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and has not used it for a bona f ide offering of goods and/or services, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any page 3 way or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s AKADEMIBOKHANDELN trademark, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain, and the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in the disputed domain name or the AKADEMIBOKHANDELN trademark; iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its AKADEMIBOKHANDELN trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name and intentionally registered a domain name that was confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent used the disputed domain name to load a website that was similar to the Complainant’s website and purported to offer identical products often at discounted prices, the Respondent has accordingly intentionally attempted to attract Internet traffic for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark AKADEMIBOKHANDELN, and the Respondent undertook the af oresaid conduct while using a privacy service to mask its identity. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and did not engage with the Center or these proceedings. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving: i) that the disputed domain name is identical or conf usingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which it has rights; ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad f aith. The Respondent's def ault does not automatically result in a decision in f avor of the Complainant. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules does however provide that if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inf erences f rom the Respondent's f ailure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. page 4 Although the addition of the term “-se” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f ind s the addition of this term does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Further, Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or illegal activity (here claimed to be the intentionally-confusing imitation of the Complainant’s business) can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. Again, the Respondent has not engaged with the proceedings and has not rebutted the Complainant’s allegations and related supporting evidence in respect of the Respondent’s conduct. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. As noted above, the Complainant has asserted and provided compelling evidence that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to imitate and/or impersonate the Complainant and mislead consumers by creating the impression that the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s website, or is connected with the Complainant, when it is not. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. The use of a domain name f or p er se illegitimate activity such as the intentional impersonation of the complainant and/or conduct that is intended to mislead or deceive consumers can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Such behavior is manifestly considered evidence of bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4. page 5 The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <akademibokhandeln-se.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Aaron Newell/ Aaron Newell Sole Panelist Date: February 1, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.