1. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademarks (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy). In particular, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are almost identical to the Complainant's trademark IKEA.
In this regard, it shall be reminded how several previous UDRP panels have held that the addition of generic words such as "just” or “the” before a well-known trademark does not reduce the high degree of similarity between a disputed Domain Name and a prior trademark.
In this regard, it has been stated that “... confusing similarity is generally established when the domain name incorporates the complainant's trademark in its entirety, and the addition of descriptive prefixes and suffixes does not avoid confusing similarity. […]” (see Fendi S.r.l. v. Federico Porcedda, Case No. D2018-1265).
In the present case, the Panel believes <justikea.com, justikea.xyz, justikea.org, justikea.info and theikea.com> are definitely confusingly similar to the trademark IKEA.
2. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
The Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain names. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent, which did not file any Response to the complaint of Ikea.
As a matter of fact, there are no arguments why the Respondent could have own rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. IKEA definitely is a distinctive sign used by the Complainant as business name and trademark in order to denote its products and services. Therefore, the Panel accepts the contentions of the Complainant that the Respondent has no such rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.
3. The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names to have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
As stated above, the Panel finds that the Complainant successfully submitted prima facie evidence that the Respondent has made no use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, neither of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, nor is commonly known under the disputed domain names. This prima facie evidence was not challenged by the Respondent.
In the absence of a Response and given the reputation of the Complainant and its trademarks, the Panel infers that the Respondent had the Complainant's trademarks IKEA in mind when registering the disputed domain names, especially considering that they are connected to the website https://www.justikea.com/ which is using the trademark IKEA without any authorization from the Complainant.
Consequently, the Panel believes that< justikea.com, justikea.xyz, justikea.org, justikea.info and theikea.com> were registered and are used in bad faith by Zain Hyderi.
|