Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-107909

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant relies on registrations of the mark IKEA in multiple jurisdictions including the following word mark registrations:

• Canadian registration no. TMA223748 of 21 January 1977 in classes 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 27, 28, 35, 42 and 43;
• US registration no. 1661360 of 22 October 1991 in classes 2, 18, 25, 29-31, 35, 36, 39 and 41;  
• EU registration no. 000109652 of 1 October 1998 in classes 2, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27-31, 35, 36, 39, 41 and 42.

The Complainant is the registered proprietor of the mark IKEA in multiple jurisdictions, including the registrations identified above. It franchises the use of the mark and is responsible for developing and supplying the product range sold under the mark around the world. The Complainant's group employs 216,000 people in more than 50 markets and its stores receive nearly one billion visitors per year. The Complainant began retail operations in Taiwan in 1994; it now has 9 stores there.

The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on 15 October 2019 without the Complainant's authorisation. It locates a website promoting various services. The Respondent's address is in Taiwan.

The Complainant's representatives sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter on 8 August 2025. The Respondent did not reply.

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered rights in the mark IKEA. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name consists of this mark followed by the descriptive word "honest" and the generic top level domain name suffix. The Panel considers that this domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

The Panel notes first that the Complainant's mark was registered in multiple jurisdictions many years before the disputed domain name. The Panel infers on the balance of probabilities that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant's mark when he registered the disputed domain name. 

The Panel does not regard the Respondent's website as constituting a bona fide offering of goods or services. On the contrary, the Panel considers that the Respondent has been knowingly using a domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant's long-established mark to attract Internet users to that website in bad faith by causing confusion with the Complainant's well-known mark.

On the available evidence, the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and it seems clear that the Respondent has not been using it for any legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The Panel further notes that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the disputed domain name.

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 name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

The Panel finds on the evidence that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website and services promoted on it.

In accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP this constitutes evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. There is no evidence displacing this presumption. 

Accordingly, the Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant's well-known registered mark followed by descriptive or generic elements. The only use of the disputed domain name has been to locate a website promoting various services, attracting Internet users to that website by its confusing similarity with the Complainant's well-known mark. The Panel considers that this does not create any rights of legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name and constitutes unrebutted evidence of registration and use in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(v) of the UDRP.