{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107635", "time_of_filling": "2025-06-02 15:11:48", "domain_names": [ "electroluxpk.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "AB Electrolux" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ "demir marol" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

The Complainant, AB ELECTROLUX, was established in 1919, and is a Swedish multinational appliance manufacturer, headquartered in Stockholm.<\/p>\n

The Complainant is one of the world’s leading producers of appliances and equipment for kitchen, cleaning and floor care products. In 2024, the Complainant had sales of SEK 136 billion and employed 41,000 people around the world.<\/p>\n

The Complainant owns many domain names including the Trademark, such as the domain names <electrolux.com>, <electroluxgroup.com>, <electrolux.se>, <electrolux.ca>, <electrolux.com.br>, <electrolux.co.uk>, <electrolux.fr>, <electrolux.de>, <electrolux.ro>, <electrolux.com.cn> and <electrolux.com.au> and many others.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <electroluxpk.com> was registered on April 11, 2025 and, at the time of filing the Complaint, has been used in connection with an active website, using a slightly modified logo of the Complainant and selling competitive products under the false pretence to be an official platform of the Complainant.<\/p>\n

<\/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:<\/span>

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark.<\/span>

Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant states that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, that it is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way, that the Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent, and that neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Trademark or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent fails to meet the requirements set forth in Oki Data test <\/em>(Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.<\/em>, WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) and has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.<\/span>

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its Trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name as the Trademark is well-known and that the Respondent's use of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith, as it has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

<\/span><\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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": [ "Stefanie Efstathiou LL.M. mult." ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-07-02 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant is the owner of several \"ELECTROLUX<\/span>\" trademarks, registered worldwide, such as:<\/p>\n