The Complainant is an Italian manufacturer of high quality kitchen hood. The Complainant is part of the Franke Group, a global group of companies based in Switzerland and founded in 1911. The Complainant was first established in 1955 and is now present in 8 countries and on 3 continents with several plants and commercial offices. In India, the Complainant has a subsidiary, incorporated in 1997 and operates online through the domain name <faberindia.com>. Faber has also a strong presence on the most important social networks and gained several awards for its innovative products.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on 21 January 2022 and resolves to a \"coming soon\" webpage displaying the wording \"Faber Service Center\" twice, and a telephone number. The webpage also shows a background of a kitchen and a hood. On 31 January 2023, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent listed in the WhoIs of the disputed domain name, without receiving any answer. <\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
The Complainant maintains that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the FABER trademark as it incorporates this trademark entirely and the addition of the terms \"customer\" and \"care\" cannot prevent a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n
The Complainant further maintains that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered many years after the first registration of the FABER mark. The Complainant has not licensed or authorized the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name, nor is the Respondent affiliated to the Complainant in any form. Moreover, there is no evidence of the fact that the Respondent is known by the disputed domain name or owns any corresponding registered trademarks. <\/p>\n
The structure of the disputed domain name reveals that the Respondent's initial intention in registering the disputed domain name was to refer to the Complainant, its trademark and business activities. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant's FABER mark with the addition of the terms \"customer\" and \"care\", which directly relate to the Complainant's business and especially to its after-sale customer services. The disputed domain name resolves to a \"coming soon\" webpage that displays the FABER mark as well as colors - in dominant white, grey and green tones - highly similar to the ones used on the Complainant's official website at \"www.faberspa.com\". The disputed domain name is therefore likely to create the false impression that the Respondent is an authorized service center for the Complainant's products without express authority of the Complainant. The background of the page, as described above, also refers to the Complainant's business. This use of the disputed domain name cannot be considered a bona fide or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use as it suggests affiliation with the Complainant. The relevant website does not contain any information on whom is operating the website and offering the repair services advertised on the same. However, the webpage contains several features that are a clear reference to the Complainant's business. The webpage also contains a telephone number, inviting the visitors to call if an after-sale service is needed. The Respondent is therefore using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users looking for the Complainant to its own webpage for the Respondent's benefit. <\/p>\n
In relation to bad faith, the Complainant observes that it is unconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, considering that the trademark FABER is widely known, and that the Complainant owns an Indian subsidiary operating in this country, which is the same country where the Respondent is located. Moreover, a simple online search on a popular search engine using the keyword \"faber\" would have revealed the Complainant and its business. The disputed domain itself, which contains the words \"customer\" and \"care\" next to the Complainant's trademark, is a further indication of the fact that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. Indeed, these words are strictly connected to the Complainant's activity, which includes post-sale customer services.<\/p>\n
The contents of the webpage associated with the disputed domain name is a further evidence of the fact that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to capture Internet traffic from Internet users who are looking for the Complainant's products and services. The Respondent calculated to confuse Internet to attract them for commercial gain to its website.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Respondent never replied to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant and concealed its identity behind a privacy service provider. Both these circumstances are additional evidence of bad faith.<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. <\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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).<\/p>", "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.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Angelica Lodigiani" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2023-09-29 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations for the FABER trademark, among which, the following:<\/p>\n
The Complainant is also the owner of a large number of domain names containing the trademark FABER, such as <faberspa.com>, registered on the 14th of December 1999, <faberspa.co.in>, registered on the 12th of May 2006, <faberindia.in>, registered on the 18th of September 2007, etc.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "fabercustomercare.com ": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }