{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-101646",
    "time_of_filling": "2021-07-02 09:40:38",
    "domain_names": [
        "ikeacrimea.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Inter IKEA Systems B.V."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Convey srl",
    "respondent": [
        "Келюх Ирина Павловна\/Kelyukh Irina"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR TO A TRADEMARK OR SERVICE MARK IN WHICH THE COMPLAINANT HAS RIGHTS\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is the worldwide IKEA franchisor and responsible for developing and supplying the global IKEA range.\r\nIKEA is one of the most well-known home furnishing brands in the world with more than four hundred stores, whilst all the IKEA Group has roughly 220,000 employees worldwide reaching more than fifty markets and almost a billion of visitors per year.\r\nThe use of the mark started more than 70 years ago and has been renowned for its business services and brand recognition.\r\nThe Complainant holds trademark registrations in more than 80 countries around the world and the IKEA trademark has been extensively promoted, without limitation, in print advertisements, promotional materials, Internet forums acquiring a high international recognition.\r\n\r\nThe IKEA web site www.ikea.com was launched in 1997 and nowadays the Complainant has registered more than 441 domain names under generic Top- Level Domains (“gTLDs”) and 294 domain names under country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”).\r\nThe trademark IKEA has been extensively used in the major social networks where the Complainant has multiple accounts on the same platform for each country.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims its trademark IKEA is distinctive and well known all around the world.\r\n\r\nThe disputed domain name has been registered by the Respondent on December 16, 2014, without authorization of the Complainant, and has been pointed to a website passing off as an authorized website of a Complainant's franchisee providing the delivery service of IKEA goods to local customers – however such website was in no manner linked to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nWhen the Complainant became aware of the registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent, it served the Respondent and the corresponding Internet Service Providers with cease and desist letters in order to formally notify them of the infringement of the Complainant’s trademark rights, requesting the immediate cease of any use, and the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nOn May 8, 2020 a trademark infringement notice was sent to the email address of the Registrar of the disputed domain name.\r\nThe Registrar answered to the Complainant that its notice of trademark infringement above was forwarded to the owner of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nOn May 27, 2021, the Complainant sent via email a new cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting to refrain from using the disputed domain name and to transfer it to the Complainant.\r\n\r\nIn absence of a reply and failing to comply with the request for transfer of the disputed domain name, the Complainant has decided to file Complaint in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant highlights that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's IKEA trademark in its entirety with the addition of the denomination “Crimea” after the word “ikea”, thus the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.\r\n\r\nThe addition of the geographic term “Crimea” does not reduce the high degree of similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark.\r\nThe disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s IKEA trademark and the addition of the geographical term “Crimea” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The .com suffix is merely instrumental to the use in Internet.\r\n\r\nTHE RESPONDENT HAS NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent is not an authorized dealer of the Complainant nor has ever been authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark in the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant is not aware of the existence of any evidence demonstrating that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name as an individual, business, or other organization.\r\n\r\nAccording to the Complainant, there is no evidence of use, or demonstrable preparations to use, of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services before any notice of the dispute.\r\nThe Complainant could not find any evidence of bona fide offering of goods or services related to the denomination IKEA.\r\nThe Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to trade upon IKEA trademark reputation, since the disputed domain name was at first connected to a web page that was hosting IKEA related content passing off as an authorized Complainant’s delivery service provider.\r\n\r\nAs of April 16, 2021, the disputed domain name was redirected to a website that was no longer advertising content showing any delivery service of IKEA goods to IKEA consumers living in Crimea, but it was still active displaying the IKEA sign in yellow capital letters as website logo.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant adds that the Respondent still intends to trade upon the reputation of Complainant’s trademark through obtaining profits from the business of delivery and assembly of IKEA products in Crimea via the website corresponding to the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nThe Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to conduct any business activity under the “IKEA” name.\r\nThe Complainant states that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the wording “IKEA” despite the fact that the IKEA word was a well-known trademark all over the world, including in Crimea, Russia and Ukraine.\r\nTherefore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.\r\n\r\nTHE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND BEING USED IN BAD FAITH\r\n\r\nThe Complainant claims that the registered trademark IKEA has been used extensively and exclusively by the Complainant since 1943 and, through long established and widespread use in several countries of the world, the aforesaid trademark of the Complainant enjoys worldwide reputation in the sector of furniture.\r\nThe disputed domain name was registered in December 2014, years after the Complainant obtained its trademark registrations, including registrations in Russia and Ukraine.\r\n\r\nBy virtue of its extensive worldwide use, the Complainant’s trademark has become a well-known trademark as indicated in several UDRP decisions.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant states that registering a well-known trademark is deemed bad faith registration considering indeed that the Respondent knew or should have known that its registration would be identical to the Complainant’s mark.\r\n\r\nIt is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s registered trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name, with which it is confusingly similar, also in consideration of the circumstances that the IKEA word mark is displayed as website logo in yellow and in capital letters in the homepage of the corresponding website.\r\nThe Respondent failed to respond to Complaint’s cease and desist letter.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further adds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name having in mind the value of the Complainant’s trademark and with the aim to profit of IKEA fame in order to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website corresponding to the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such web site or location or of a product or service on such web site or location.\r\n\r\nThis, in the opinion of the Complainant, reveals the implausibility of any good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent demonstrated to be aimed at capitalizing on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s marks or otherwise at misleading Internet users.\r\n\r\nTherefore, considering the high reputation of the trademarks IKEA, the Complainant claims such use amounts to bad faith.",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.",
    "no_response_filed": "NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.\r\n",
    "rights": "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).",
    "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "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).",
    "bad_faith": "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).",
    "procedural_factors": "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.\r\n\r\nLanguage of the proceeding.\r\n\r\nThe registrar – Hosting Ukraine LLC, Ukraine in its communication to the Czech Arbitration Court (CAC) stated that the language of the registration agreement is Russian.\r\nThe Complainant requests that English shall be the language of this proceeding. The Complainant’s arguments can be summarized as follows:\r\n\r\n1.\tThe registrar on its website has a registration agreement in Russian, English and Ukrainian. Thus, the Complainant has supposed that the Respondent could know English.\r\n2.\tThe response received from the registrar regarding Complainant’s trademark infringement complaint was in English. The Complainant assumes the Respondent should understand English, as otherwise the Registrar would have asked the Complainant to translate the letter in Russian or Ukrainian.\r\n3.\tAfter the refusal to deactivate the website, the Complainant sent a cease a desist letter to the Respondent requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name. A few days after Complainant’s notification, which was sent to the Respondent’s attention in English, the Respondent took down most of the content of the website. Therefore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has a knowledge of English and was able to understand the content of the Complainant's cease and desist letters. \r\n4.\t The Respondent’s email address is associated to the domain “privacyprotected.net” corresponding to the website http:\/\/privacyprotected.net\/ that is entirely in English. The Complainant contends that to activate the privacy protection of Hosting Ukraine LLC, the Respondent has signed the agreement in English. This circumstance serves as further evidence to Complainant’s contention that the Respondent understands English.\r\n5.\tThe Respondent has chosen to register the disputed domain name in Latin characters, including the indication in English of the Crimea region, rather than in Russian script. The top-level domain .com is an international TLD, not a ccTLD. English is commonly recognized as the primary language for business and international relations. \r\n6.\tThe payment page of the website by the disputed domain name was partially in English, demonstrating that the owner of the website understands English and that prima facie the website was dedicated also to English speakers. \r\n7.\tThe Respondent showed on the website a hyperlink leading to a VK (a Russian Social Media) account where he posts content also in English. The link to the VK account https:\/\/vk.com\/ was posted on the cached version of the website before the Respondent’s removal of most of the IKEA-related contents. On the VK page there is also content published in English. \r\nThe Complainant concludes that all of the above demonstrates that the Respondent has knowledge and understanding of English.\r\n\r\nThe Complainant further contends that it would be disproportionate to require the Complainant not to submit the present Complaint in English, incurring costs of translation, and it would be contrary to the aim of the UDRP of providing time and cost-effective means of resolving domain name disputes. \r\n\r\nThe Panel first notes that paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceeding in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case and it is Panel’s obligation to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition.\r\n\r\nUnder par. 11 (a) of the UDRP Rules unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.\r\nTherefore, the Panel needs to provide the balance of interests of both parties to the proceeding and provide them with a fair opportunity to present their case and explain their positions, on the one hand and to ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition, on the other hand. \r\nBoth fairness and equal rights of the parties and speed and efficiency of the proceeding need to be maintained.\r\n\r\nSecond, the Panel notes that the website by the disputed domain name on the date of this decision is entirely in Russian. The previous versions of the website provided by the Complainant in its annex and as checked by the Panel via web.archive.org were also only in the Russian language. \r\nThere is no direct evidence indicating that the Respondent is able to communicate in English or that the website was targeted to English speakers: there is no English language content on the website by the disputed domain name and there was no direct communication in English between the Parties. \r\n\r\nBased on the evidence available before the Panel the Respondent has never responded to the Complainant in English.\r\n\r\nHowever, the registrar has indeed its registration agreement in three (3) languages and the fact that the Respondent appears to have changed the website’s content shortly after receipt of Complainant’s cease and desist letter sent in English may indicate at least some understanding of English. The disputed domain name also includes the English word “Crimea” rather than transliteration of Russian or Ukrainian words (“Krym” or “Krim”). \r\nHowever, all these factors may only serve as indirect evidence (indication) of possible understanding of English by the Respondent.\r\n\r\nThird, the Respondent failed to respond in this dispute. The Panel understands both English and Russian and is able to conduct the proceeding in both languages.\r\nExercising its rights under par. 10 (a) of the UDRP Rules the Panel issued a procedural order in both Russian and English and invited the Respondent to submit her response and arguments in either Russian or English, whereas the Complainant was invited to provide additional arguments in respect of the language of this proceeding. \r\nThe Respondent failed to take this additional opportunity and did not provide a response. The Complainant provided additional submissions after the Panel’s deadline set in the procedural order however the Complainant stated that it missed the deadline due to technical reasons.\r\nIn any case, the Complainant’s additional submissions essentially repeat the same arguments summarized above.\r\nTo sum up, the Panel finds that it provided fair opportunities to both parties. \r\n\r\nIn particular, the Respondent was given an additional opportunity to explain her case and arguments in Russian, but failed to do so. \r\nThe Panel was ready to accept the response and arguments in Russian.\r\n\r\nAs stated by one of the UDRP panels: “The spirit of Paragraph 11 is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the parties’ level of comfort with each language, the expenses to be incurred and the possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors” (see Groupe Industriel Marcel Dassault, Dassault Aviation v. Mr. Minwoo Park, WIPO Case No. D2003-0989). \r\n\r\nPrevious UDRP decisions confirmed that a complaint may be filed in one language and a response can be submitted in the same or another language when the Panel is familiar with both languages: “to accept the Complaint in the language as filed, to accept a Response in either language, and to put the matter through for determination by a Panel familiar (wherever possible) with both languages” (see e.g. Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, WIPO Case No. D2008-1191 and Laverana GmbH & Co. KG v. Silkewang, Jiangsu Yun Lin Culture Communication Co., Ltd. \/ xia men yi ming wang luo you xian gong si, WIPO Case No. D2016-0721).\r\n\r\nTaking into account speed and efficiency of the proceeding, the spirit of paragraphs 10 and 11 of the UDRP Rules and circumstances of this dispute described above, the Panel decides to proceed in English.\r\n",
    "decision": "Accepted",
    "panelists": [
        "Igor Motsnyi \/ Mocni Konsalting doo"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2021-08-20 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "In this proceeding, the Complainant relies on several international and national “IKEA” trademarks citing the following marks in particular:\r\n \r\n- The German word mark IKEA No. DE867152, registered on March 12, 1970, protected for goods in class 20;\r\n\r\n- The US figurative mark IKEA No. 1118706, registered on May 22, 1979, protected for goods in classes 11, 20, 21, 24, 27;\r\n\r\n- The US word mark IKEA No. 1661360, registered on October 22, 1991, protected for goods and services in classes 2, 18, 25, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41;\r\n\r\n- The EU word mark IKEA No. 000109652, registered on October 1, 1998, protected for goods and services in classes 2, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 36, 39, 41, 42;\r\n\r\n- The EU figurative mark IKEA No. 000109637, registered on October 8, 1998, protected for goods and services in classes 2, 8, 11, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 35, 26, 39, 41, 42;\r\n\r\n- The international mark IKEA (figurative) No 926155, protected inter alia in Russia and Ukraine, registered on April 24, 2007, protected for goods and services in classes 16, 20, 35, 43;\r\n\r\n- The Italian word mark IKEA No 0001257211, registered on March 12, 2010, protected for goods in class 20;\r\n\r\n- The Italian word mark IKEA No 0001300174, registered on June 3, 2010, protected for goods in class 21; and\r\n\r\n- The Ukrainian trademark No. 273659 (IKEA word + device), registered on March, 25, 2020, protected for goods and services in classes 16, 20, 35, 43.\r\n",
    "decision_domains": {
        "IKEACRIMEA.COM": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}