The Complainant is L’Oreal of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Hou Dejian of Beijing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 1, 2013. On March 1, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2013, 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. On March 6, 2013, the Center transmitted an email to the Parties in both Chinese and English languages regarding the language of proceedings. On March 8, 2013, the Complainant requested that English be the language of proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of proceedings by the specified due date.
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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 13, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 2, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 4, 2013.
The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2013. 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. 4. Factual Background
The Clarisonic brand was originally developed by Pacific Bioscience Laboratories. Clarisonic branded products are used for sonic skin care. In 2011 the Complainant purchased Pacific Bioscience Laboratories and Clarisonic has since then been a brand of the Complainant. The Complainant is the registrant of the trademark CLARISONIC in many countries around the world including in China.
The disputed domain name was registered on November 25, 2012. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that claims to be an official Clarisonic website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark CLARISONIC. The addition of the numbers “2013” indicating the current year do not detract from any similarity.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It has not registered any trademarks in the name “Clarisonic”. It is not an authorized dealer for Clarisonic products.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has clearly registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract Internet visitors to its website. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
This is a very simple case of domain name cybersquatting that the UDRP was designed to stop. The Panel accordingly will only make brief findings. A. Language of Proceedings
The Complainant has requested that English be the language of proceedings on numerous grounds, but most importantly because the website the disputed domain name resolves to is written entirely in English. On this ground and because on the website that the disputed domain name resolves to, the Respondent specifically claims to be the Pacific Bioscience Laboratories (which does business in English), the Panel determines the language of proceedings to be English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is composed of the Complainant’s registered trademark CLARISONIC and the numerals for the current year “2013”.
According to previous UDRP decisions, the “addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trademark in a domain name would normally be insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP” (see paragraph 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”)).
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark.
The first element of the UDRP is made out. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not responded to the Complaint to assert any rights or legitimate interests. None of the circumstances in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, which sets out how a respondent can prove its rights or legitimate interests, are present in this case.
Since the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has not rebutted, the Panel finds that the second element of the UDRP is made out. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel also finds that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith and is being used in bad faith.
The disputed domain name resolves to a website that falsely suggests that the Respondent is the Complainant or is commercially related to the Complainant.
This case falls within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy which provides that a registrant has registered and is using a domain name in bad faith where:
(iv) “by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”
The third element of the UDRP is made out. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Douglas Clark
Sole Panelist
Date: April 28, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy