Complainant is Clarins of Neuilly Sur Seine, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.
Respondent is Private Registrations Aktien Gesellschaft of Kingstown, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines / PrivacyP of Nobby Beach, Queensland, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 31, 2013. On October 31, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 2, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on November 5, 2013, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 6, 2013.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 21, 2013. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 11, 2013. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 12, 2013.
The Center appointed Sally M. Abel as the sole panelist in this matter on December 23, 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
Complainant is the proprietor of numerous CLARINS registered trademarks, in Australia (Registration No. 272254), Canada (Registration No. TMA645123), France (Registration No. 1637194), and elsewhere, for cosmetics. Complainant’s earliest cited registration is a 1972 registration covering the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Cayman Islands, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Registration No. 997617). Complainant also owns and uses the Internet domain name . Complainant’s cosmetics business was founded in 1954 and gained prominence in the skin care field in France and Europe in the 1980s and 1990s. Complainant’s personal care lines include skin care, make-up, perfumes, organic cosmetics, and men’s products. Complainant has an international presence with a network of 20 subsidiaries, over 140 international agents, and over 6,000 staff worldwide.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 31, 2005, without Complainant’s authorization. The disputed domain name expires on January 31, 2014. Complainant states that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to provide sponsored links to competitor products and pages related to Complainant’s field of cosmetic products. Complainant also notes the domain name is for sale. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar, if not virtually identical to Complainant’s CLARINS marks, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, and use as set forth above, constitutes bad faith registration and use. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Respondent has defaulted. Paragraph 14(b) of the Rules provides that the Panel may draw such inferences from a default as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel infers from Respondent’s silence that Complainant’s allegations are, in fact, correct. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s CLARINS trademarks. Respondent has simply added the generic “www” in front of Complainant’s CLARINS mark – without the ubiquitous “.” in between – in an unabashed attempt to take advantage of consumers attempting to find, access or use the domain name “www.”. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no connection between Respondent and the term “clarins”. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Respondent’s selection of the disputed domain name 33 years after Complainant’s first cited trademark registration, its diversion and misdirection of Internet users to its website in order to profit from the sale of advertising space to Complainant’s competitors, and the “for sale” status of the domain name constitute bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. Respondent intentionally and deliberately targeted Complainant’s trademark, and its associated goodwill, for commercial gain (Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iv)). 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 Complainant.
Sally M. Abel
Sole Panelist
Date: January 6, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy