Source: https://www.legi-internet.ro/jurisprudenta-it-romania/decizii-ompi/ericssoncomro-telefonaktiebolaget-lm-ericsson-v-andrea-mariotti.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:21:02+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by Rominvent S.A., Romania.
The Respondent is Andrea Mariotti of Modena, Italy.
The disputed domain name <ericsson.com.ro> is registered with RNC.ro.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the-Centerââ‚¬Â) on October 20, 2010. On October 20, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to RNC.ro a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 21, 2010, RNC.ro. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center that the Complaint was administratively deficient, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 15, 2010.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the-Policyââ‚¬Â or-UDRPââ‚¬Â), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the-Rulesââ‚¬Â), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the-Supplemental Rulesââ‚¬Â).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 17, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 7, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s default on December 8, 2010.
The Center appointed Mihaela Maravela as the sole panelist in this matter on December 17, 2010. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.
RNC.ro has informed the Center that the language of the relevant registration agreement is Romanian.
As the Complaint had been submitted in English, on October 29, 2010, the Center forwarded a notice to the parties stating that the Complainant should (a) provide evidence of an agreement between the parties that proceedings be in English; (b) translate the Complaint into Romanian; or (c) submit a request that English be the language of the proceedings. On November 4, 2010 the Complainant filed a request that the language of the proceedings be English.
Although properly notified in both languages on the commencement of the proceedings, the Respondent chose not to object the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s request that English be the language of the proceedings and not to participate in the proceedings.
- Despite the fact of being properly notified, the Respondent did not provide any Response and did not file any objection to English as the language of these proceedings.
The Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson a world-leading provider of telecommunications equipment and related services to mobile and fixed network operators. The Complainant has used the trademark ERICSSON in commerce in connection with a wide range of products and services in classes 9, 11, 16, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42 according to the Nice Classification, worldwide. Since 1876, the Complainant has used the ERICSSON name and mark in connection with telecommunications goods and services. Such goods and services have been provided continuously under the ERICSSON name and mark worldwide, since at least as early as 1942.
The Respondent in this administrative proceeding is Andrea Mariotti and the disputed domain name was registered on January 1, 1996.
The Complainant contends that the word-Ericssonââ‚¬Â in the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademark ERICSSON are identical.
Also, the Complainant contends that there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, which would give rise to any license, permission or authorization by which the Respondent could legitimately claim rights. The word-Ericssonââ‚¬Â is not a part of the Respondent's name and, on information and belief, is not a name by which the Respondent is or has been ever been known. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has never actually used the name or mark ERICSSON in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services from the time the disputed domain name was registered until the date of this Complaint. The Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Accordingly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the ERICSSON trademark is a well-known trademark in Romania and all the European countries, for the past 20 years. The Respondent knew or should have known of the use of the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name. The fact that he registered the disputed domain name anyway constitutes bad faith. The likely explanation of the registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent is that he intended to unfairly benefit from the reputation of the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s trademarks.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s contentions.
-A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicableââ‚¬Â, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules.
The Panel must find that the Complainant has a trademark or service mark and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark or service mark.
Here, the Complainant has proved it has rights in the Community trademark No. 000107003 for the mark ERICSSON with three stripe design, in the Community trademark No. 001459130 for the verbal mark ERICSSON, in the Romanian trademark No. 041729 for the verbal mark ERICSSON. Also, the Complainant invoked it is the owner of United Kingdom (-UKââ‚¬Â) Trademark Registration No. 2437257, for the word mark ERICSSON, of the United States of America (-U.S.ââ‚¬Â) Federal Trademark Registration No. 1313196 for the mark ERICSSON with three-stripe design (stylized E), which registration was issued on January 8, 1985, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The question of resemblance for the purpose of the Policy requires a comparison of the disputed domain name to the trademark rights which have been proved.
Here, the disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s prior trademark ERICSSON. It is well accepted that a top-level domain, is to be ignored when assessing identity or confusing similarity of a trademark and a domain name (See, e.g. VAT Holding AG v. Vat.com, WIPO Case No. D2000-0607; Billa Aktiengesellschaft v. Ganea Nicolae, WIPO Case No. DRO2002-0001; Inter-IKEA Systems B.V. v. SC Agis International Sport S.R.L., WIPO Case No. DRO2006-0001; Auchan v. Web4comm Srl Romania, WIPO Case No. DRO2005-0001).
In the present case the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and Respondent has failed to assert any such rights. (See, e.g., Barbara Brennan Inc. v. Texas International Property Associates, WIPO Case No. D2008-0351; Sanford Winery Company v. Matt Geiser, WIPO Case No. D2008-0210). The Complainant alleges that the Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s only reason in registering and using the disputed domain name is to benefit from the reputation of the trademark ERICSSON and illegitimately trade on its fame for commercial gain and profit.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent has failed to invoke any circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
(iv) By using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantââ‚¬â„¢s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the said website location or of a product or service on that website location.
- In the Panelââ‚¬â„¢s view, any use of the domain name would likely lead the public to the conclusion that it, and its connecting websites, are associated with the Complainant.
In light of these particular circumstances, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Respondentââ‚¬â„¢s passive holding of the domain name in this particular case satisfies the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) that the domain name-is being used in bad faithââ‚¬Â by the Respondent.
For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <ericsson.com.ro> be transferred to the Complainant.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.