The Complainant is L’Oréal of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Ana Ring of Longview, Texas, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with R (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 24, 2013. On October 25, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 25, 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.
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 November 1, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 21, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 22, 2013.
The Center appointed Dr. Hong Xue as the sole panelist in this matter on November 27, 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
L’Oréal is a French industrial group specialized in the field of cosmetics and beauty and owns the trademark registrations including L’OREAL and KERASTASE on the products of hair color, permanents, styling aids, body and science skincare, cleansers and fragrance.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 24, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark KERASTASE, the registration and use of which by the Complainant long precedes the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to it. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i), a complainant must prove that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. In line with such requirement, a complainant must prove its trademark right and the similarity between the disputed domain name and its trademark.
The Panel finds that before the registration of the disputed domain name the trademark KERASTASE had been registered and used on the Complainant’s hair care products and services in the United States of America and many other countries.
The disputed domain name is . Apart from the generic Top-Level Domain suffix “.com”, the disputed domain name consists of “kerastasecrm”, which can easily be read as “kerastase” and “crm”. The first part “kerastase” is obviously identical with the Complainant’s registered trademark, and the Complainant contends that the second part “crm” is the acronym for the generic term of “consumer relationship management.”
The Panel finds that “crm” is commonly used as the generic acronym of consumer relationship management. Even if “crm” could refer to something else or be merely a meaningless combination of three letters, the Panel notes that “kerastase” is the most prominent and distinctive component in the whole domain name string. Therefore, the disputed domain name that incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KERASTASE in its entirety is not substantively distinct from the Complainant’s trademark despite the general acronym “crm” attached as a suffix.
The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark KERASTASE. Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the first element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant asserts, and provides evidence to demonstrate, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, as stated above, the Respondent did not provide any information to the Panel asserting any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name.
It is apparent from the Complaint that there is no connection between the Respondent and the Complainant or its business. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists a number of circumstances which can be taken to demonstrate a respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. However, there is no evidence before the Panel that any of the situations described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy applies here. To the contrary, the lack of a formal Response leads the Panel to draw a negative inference.
Therefore, and also in light of the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name . Accordingly, the Complainant has proven the second element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent did not respond to these contentions.
According to the statement and evidence provided by the Complainant, the website that is currently at the disputed domain name displays a variety of commercial services primarily on making counterfeiting or unauthorized certificates for job applicants. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered and would appear to be fully controlled by the Respondent.
The Complainant also proves that its trademark KERASTASE has acquired considerable reputation, particularly on the hair care products, through the consistent use and promotion, in the United States of America where the Respondent resides and many other countries.
The Panel, therefore, finds that the Respondent’s act of using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark to attract consumers to a website offering apparently illegal services is highly like to cause the confusion, at least initially, with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of the services offered on the Respondent’s website.
The Panel therefore finds that this is adequate to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy, paragraph 4(b). Therefore, the Complainant has successfully proven the third element required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. 7. Decision
For all 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.
Dr. Hong Xue
Sole Panelist
Date: December 11, 2013
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy