The Complainant is Natura Cosméticos S/A of São Paulo, Brazil / Indústria e Comércio de Cosméticos Natura Ltda. of São Paulo, Brazil, represented by Ricci Advogados Associados, Brazil.
The Respondent is A Domain Privacy of Beaumaris, Victoria, Australia / Nish Patel, Ready Asset of Xiamen, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with A, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 3, 2014. On September 4, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 8, 2014, 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 the Complainant on September 9, 2014, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amendment to the Complaint on the same date.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 September 10, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was September 30, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 1, 2014.
The Center appointed Christopher J. Pibus as the sole panelist in this matter on October 10, 2014. 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 Complainant is a Brazilian company, which manufacture and sell cosmetics, perfumes and hygiene products since 1969. The Complainant has been using the trademark NATURA for over 40 years on its products and services, as well as incorporating the NATURA mark in their corporate name and domain names. The Complainant’s products and services have been promoted and sold in several countries, including Argentina, Peru, Bolivia, Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, France and Mexico. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations around the world, including the following:
Brazilian Trademark NATURA – Registration No. 815.082.649 – June 21, 1994
Brazilian Trademark NATURA COSMETICA TERAPEUTICA – Registration No. 815.379.005 – September 8, 1992
France Trademark NATURA – Registration No. 9821 – April 24, 1953
International Trademark NATURA – Registration No. 232091 – May 27, 2010
CTM Trademark NATURA BEM ESTAR BEM – Registration No. 005438692 – November 8, 2007
The Complainant owns many domain name registrations, including the following:
The disputed domain name was registered on March 18, 2013. At the time the Complaint was filed the disputed domain name reverted to a website which provided links to third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant submits that it owns many trademark registrations for the trademark NATURA around the world, including the registrations listed in paragraph 4.
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark NATURA. The addition of the term “cosmeticos” does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s NATURA trademark. In fact, the term “cosmeticos” means “cosmetics” in Portuguese, and therefore adds to the confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the addition of the letters “scn” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s NATURA trademark. Rights and Legitimate interests
The Complainant contends that the Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s NATURA trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the NATURA name. The Complainant submits that the use of a confusingly similar trademark in association with a website that provides links to third party websites for the purposes of monetary gain does not demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods and services. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s NATURA trademark. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to interfere with the Complainant’s business and is attempting to trade on the goodwill of the Complainant’s reputation. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in association with a website that provides links to third party websites for purposes of monetary gain. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, in order to succeed, the Complainant must establish each of the following elements:
(i) The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant owns registered trademark rights in the NATURA trademark by virtue of the trademark registrations listed in paragraph 4 above.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark NATURA. The disputed domain name contains as a dominant element the Complainant’s trademark NATURA, combined with the descriptive term “cosmeticos”. The addition of the term “cosmeticos” does not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name, rather it suggests the type of services or products provided, and replicates the elements of the Complainant’s trade name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel finds, on the evidence filed, that the Complainant’s trademarks have a substantial reputation, and as such the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark rights in the NATURA trademark, particularly in association with cosmetics. The Respondent was never authorized or licensed to use the Complainant’s trademark. The disputed domain name reverts to a website that provides links to third party websites for purposes of monetary gain, and in the absence of any response, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not hold any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel concludes that due to the reputation of the NATURA trademark and products and of the Complainant’s trade name, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s rights when it registered and used the disputed domain name. The Respondent clearly intended to attract users to its website through the unauthorized use of the NATURA trademark as the dominant element of its domain name, in combination with the word “cosmeticos” (which is clearly descriptive of the Complainant’s principal field of business and product line) and which replicates the elements of the Complainant’s trade name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name in association with a website which provides links to third party competitor sites in what is commonly called a “click through site”, for purposes of monetary gain. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 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.
Christopher J. Pibus
Sole Panelist
Date: October 22, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy