WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1609 for lorealduty.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION L'Oréal v. Silvina Duarte Case No. D2018-1609 1. The Parties
The Complainant is L'Oréal of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Silvina Duarte of Buenos Aires, Argentina, self-represented. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 17, 2018. On July 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2018, 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 for the disputed domain name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy" or "UDRP"), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules"), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Supplemental Rules").
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 13, 2018.
The Center appointed Cherise Valles as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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 Respondent contacted the Center on August 21, 2018 and August 24, 2018. The emails were not coherently written. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is a French industrial group specialized in the field of cosmetics and beauty, created in 1909. It is one of the world's largest groups in the cosmetic industry and is present in over 130 countries worldwide. It markets more than 30 global beauty brands including L'ORÉAL, L'ORÉAL PARIS and L'ORÉAL PROFESSIONNEL and thousands of products in all sectors of the beauty business. It has a unique international portfolio of around 30 complementary brands.
The Complainant has been present in Argentina since 1936, and established a subsidiary in the country in 1963. The Complainant markets 17 of its brands in Argentina.
The Complainant owns a number of trademarks in jurisdictions around the world for the term L'ORÉAL, including the following:
- Argentinian trademark No. 2925989 for L'ORÉAL, registered on October 24, 1996, in class 3; and
- International trademark No. 184970 for L'ORÉAL, registered on May 23, 1955 in classes 3 and 5.
The Complainant also owns numerous domain names consisting of or including the term "L'Oréal" under generic Top-Level Domains such as (registered on October 24, 1997) as well as under country code Top-Level Domains, such as (registered on February 27, 2014).
The disputed domain name was registered on December 21, 2017. The disputed domain name previously resolved to a page imitating the Complainant's official website, displaying the Complainant's trademark and products. The disputed domain name subsequently resolved to a page displaying the message "website coming soon!" 5. Parties' Contentions A. The Complainant
The Complainant asserts that each of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy and the corresponding provisions in the Rules have been satisfied. In particular, the Complainant asserts that:
The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.
- The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's registered trademark, L'ORÉAL, in light of the fact that it wholly incorporates the Complainant's mark.
The Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
- The Complainant states that the Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register any domain name that included its trademarks.
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
- The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The mere fact of registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar or identical to a famous trademark by an entity that has no relationship to that mark is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use.
The Complainant requests the Panel to issue a decision finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 4(i) of the Policy. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not provide a formal reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Policy provides specific remedies to trademark owners against registrants of domain names where the owner of the mark (a complainant) establishes each of the following elements:
(i) the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights;
(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has the burden of proof in establishing each of these elements.
The Respondent has failed to file a formal response in this proceeding. The Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the available evidence submitted by the Complainant. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
To prove this element, the Complainant must have trademark rights and the disputed domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.
The Complainant is owner of multiple registrations in jurisdictions throughout the world for the trademark L'ORÉAL, as indicated in Section 4 above.
The disputed domain name wholly incorporates the Complainant's L'ORÉAL registered mark, which previous panels have considered to be well-known (see, e.g., L'Oréal, v. Hoang lan / Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2016-0917). Earlier UDRP decisions have held that when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant's registered trademark, it m