Source: https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2011-1844
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 12:03:11+00:00

Document:
The Complainant is Atlas Copco Aktiebolag of Nacka, Sweden, represented by LeClairRyan, United States of America.
The Respondent is MKC Supply Inc of Georgia, United States of America.
The disputed domain name <atlascopcoonline.com> is registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 25, 2011. On October 26, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 4, 2011, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.
The Center appointed Peter Burgstaller as the sole panelist in this matter on December 19, 2011. 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.
The Complainant is the owner of the trademark “ATLAS COPCO” registered in Sweden since September 13, 1974 (number 148653) and the United States since February 28, 1989 (number 1526505)(see Annex 3 of the Complaint).
The domain name was created on March 12 2010 (Annex 1 of the Complaint and as confirmed by the Registrar). The disputed domain name resolves to a generic inactive website that says “This Site Is Under Construction and Coming Soon,” etc (Annex 5 of the Complaint).
The Complainant was incorporated in Sweden in 1873; together with its subsidiaries around the world, the Complainant is known as “Atlas Copco” and “the Atlas Copco Group”. The Complainant employs approximately 33,000 people worldwide and the Group’s worldwide revenues were approximately 7 billion EURO. The Complainant’s business includes development, manufacture, marketing, and servicing of compressed air equipment, industrial tools and assembly systems, construction equipment, and mining equipment. Its products are sold under various brands, including the ATLAS COPCO brand, through a world-wide sales and service network reaching approximately one hundred and fifty countries. Complainant’s primary website is located at “www.atlascopco.com”.
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the above mentioned trademarks over which the Complainant has rights. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
For these reasons the Complainant requested the disputed domain name to be transferred.
The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the Complainant’s trademark. The use of the Complainant’s trademark with the suffix “online” does not make the disputed domain name distinctive from the Complainant’s trademark. In fact it is the Panel’s conviction that in using especially the suffix “online”, it rather strengthens the impression that the disputed domain name is in some way connected to the Complainant or at least “free rides” on the fame/publicity of Complainant’s trademark (see e.g. Quixtar Investments, Inc. v. Dennis Hoffman, WIPO Case No. D2000-0253, <quixtarmortgage.com>; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Peter Lombardo, Marino Sussich and Ray Landers, WIPO Case No. D2000-1511, <telstra-free-online.com> et.al.; Dixons Group Plc v. Mr. Abu Abdullaah, WIPO Case No. D2000-1406, <dixons-online.com>; Ryder Cup Europe LLP v. Rydercuponline.com / Andrew Seaforth, WIPO Case No. D2010-0688, <rydercuponline.com>; Sanofi-aventis, AVENTISUB II Inc. v. Murugan Nadar / Rajesh Singh, WIPO Case No. D2010-1959, <buygenericallegra.com>).
It has also long been held that suffixes such as the gTLD suffix “.com” cannot typically negate confusing similarity where it otherwise exists, as it does in the present case.
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii), the Complainant has the burden of establishing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
If the respondent proves any of these elements or anything else that shows it has a right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, the complainant will have failed to discharge its onus and the complaint will fail with respect to the disputed domain name. However, in the present case the Respondent failed to submit a Response.
It is well established that, as it is put in the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second edition ("WIPO Overview 2.0") “…complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP”.
Considering all of the evidence in the Complaint and the annexes attached to it, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an undisputed prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is composed by the Complainant’s distinctive trademark and the suffix “online”.
It is the Panel’s opinion that the choice of this suffix has the only purpose to attract Internet traffic while using the publicity and the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks.
With regard to the disputed domain name it is clear for this Panel, that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s marks otherwise it would not have used the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the generic suffix “online” for registering the disputed domain name.
These findings together with the Complainant’s contentions and presented proofs lead this Panel to the conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith by the Respondent.
In order to meet paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy the Complainant has also prove that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent does not present its own website under the disputed domain name - in the present case, the domain name at issue resolves to a generic inactive website that says “This Site Is Under Construction and Coming Soon,” etc.
In certain circumstances, therefore, it is possible that inactivity by the Respondent may amount to the domain name being used in bad faith. This understanding of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is also supported by the actual provisions of the Policy – only paragraph 4(b)(iv) involves a positive action – and other Panel decisions (See e.g. Red Bull GmbH v. Manuel Sousa, WIPO Case No. D2001-0584, <redbullentertainment.com>, <redbullentertainment.net>, <redbullentertainment.org>; Deutsche Telekom AG v. Dexcom Holdings B.V., WIPO Case No. DTV2006-0001, <tmobile.tv>, <tmobil.tv>; Intel Corporation v. The Pentium Group, WIPO Case No. D2009-0273, <pentiumgroup.net>).
The circumstances identified in paragraphs 4(b)(i) to (iii) of the Policy involve also a passive holding/or inaction of the domain name registration, even though these provisions require additional facts. It should be recalled that the circumstances listed under paragraphs 4(b)(i) to (iv) of the Policy are “without limitation” – that is, paragraph 4(b) also expressly recognizes that other circumstances can provide evidence of bad faith. The Panel therefore has to examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the Respondent is acting in bad faith.
Given the fact that the Respondent incorporated the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety together with the generic suffix “online” and taking into account that the Respondent has given no evidence, whatsoever, of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the domain name, it is fairly difficult to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain names by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
Moreover the fact that the disputed domain name points to a blank inactive website which says “This Site Is Under Construction and Coming Soon” is in the view of this Panel an “act preparatory” of undertaking a positive action in bad faith since it says “…coming soon”.
Taken together these elements are compelling enough for a finding that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith.
Hence, it is the Panels conviction that the conditions set out in paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been met by the Complainant.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <atlascopcoonline.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

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