The Complainant is Klarna AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Pan Jing, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2019. On June 11, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 12, 2019, 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 June 17, 2019 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 June 20, 2019.
On June 17, 2019, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On June 20, 2019, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent, in English and Chinese, of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 24, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 16, 2019.
The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 2019. 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, Klarna AB, is a Swedish bank that was founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden with the aim of simplifying online shopping. The Complainant offers payment solutions for 60 million customers across 130,000 merchants in 14 countries. The Complainant offers direct payments, pay after delivery options and instalment plans in one-click purchase that lets consumers pay when and how they prefer to.
The Complainant is backed by investors such as Seqouia Capital, Bestseller, Permira, Visa and Atomico.
The Complainant is the owner of the several trademark registrations worldwide, including Switzerland and China:
- KLARNA (Trademark No. 14203832) registered on May 7, 2015 in China;
- KLARNA (Trademark No. 14203834) registered on May 21, 2015 in China;
- (Trademark No. 14203836) registered on June 7, 2015 in China; and
- (Trademark No. 14203837) registered on August 7, 2015 in China.
Further to the above trademark registrations, the Complainant owns several trademark registrations in including but not limited to Switzerland, United States of America, Republic of Korea and Russia Federation for word and figurative KLARNA marks.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 19, 2019 and resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant’s contentions include the following:
The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered KLARNA mark as the disputed domain name wholly incorporate the KLARNA trademark and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) (“.site”) may be disregarded under the confusing similarity test.
The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name as it has not licensed or permitted the Respondent to use any its trademark or register the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith noting that the Complainant’s trademark registrations all predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The inactive use of the disputed domain name in the case also constitutes bad faith use. Further, the disputed domain name was deleted after the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter and subsequently was re-registered by the Respondent.
For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Language of the Proceeding
Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:
“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese.
The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.
The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
The Panel cites the following with approval:
“Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel’s discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case.” (See Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).
The Panel finds that in the present case, the following should be taken into consideration upon deciding on the language of the proceeding:
(i) The disputed domain name consists of Latin letters, rather than Chinese characters;
(ii) The Complainant may be unduly disadvantaged by having to conduct the proceeding in the Chinese language; and
(iii) The Respondent did not object to the Complainant’s request that English be the language of the proceeding.
Upon considering the above, the Panel determines that English be the language of the proceeding. 6.2 Substantive Issues A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires the Complainant to show that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.
A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. The disputed domain name integrates the Complainant’s KLARNA trademark in its entirety (see Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Kuchora, Kal,WIPO Case No. D2006-0033; Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Andrew Miller,WIPO Case No. D2008-1345).
Further, it is well established that the addition of the gTLD “.site” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. (See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11.)
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Once the Complainant establishes a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in respect to the disputed domain name (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
In the present case, the Complainant has demonstrated prima facie that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and the Respondent has failed to assert any such rights or legitimate interests.
The Complainant has provided evidence that it owns trademark registrations long before the disputed domain name was registered and that it is not affiliated with nor has it permitted the Respondent to register the disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, A Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138).
The Complainant also provided evidence that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Further, the Respondent did not submit a Response in the present case and did not provide any explanation or evidence to show rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which is sufficient to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant must also show that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Policy, paragraph 4(a)(iii)). Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides circumstances that may evidence bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
The Complainant has submitted evidence, which shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name long after the Complainant registered its trademark. According to the evidence filed by the Complainant, the Complainant has owned registration for the KLARNA trademark since the year 2010 (for example, international trademark registration No. 1066079). In view of the evidence filed by the Complainant, and the widespread use of the KLARNA trademark, it is suggestive of the Respondent’s bad faith in these particular circumstances that the trademark, owned by the Complainant, was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent did not know of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see Sanofi-Aventis v. Abigail Wallace,WIPO Case No. D2009-0735).
Furthermore, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the gTLD “.site” which the Panel finds is an attempt by the Respondent to confuse and/or mislead Internet users seeking or expecting the Complainant. Previous UDRP panels ruled that in such circumstances “a likelihood of confusion is presumed, and such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant’s site to the Respondent’s site” (see E, Inc v. Triple E Holdings Limited,WIPO Case No. D2006-1095).
The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Past UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a passively parked page does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Under the particular circumstances of the present case, considering the distinctiveness and fame of the Complainant’s mark and the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. (See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3)
Based on the evidence presented to the Panel, including the registration of the disputed domain name long after the registration of the Complainant’s marks, the confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s marks, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, and the fact that is no plausible good faith use the Respondent can put the disputed domain name to, the fact that no Response was submitted by the Respondent, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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.
Jonathan Agmon
Sole Panelist
Date: August 8, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy