The Complainant is Shiseido Americas Corporation, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Ladas & Parry, United States.
The Respondent is Perfect Privacy, LLC, United States / Milen Radumilo, Romania. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 24, 2020. On January 24, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 January 29, 2020 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 amended Complaint on January 31, 2020. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 7, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 27, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 28, 2020. The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on March 13, 2020. 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 manufacturer of cosmetics with operations in approximately 120 countries. The Complainant and its parent organization were founded in 1872, employ approximately 46,000 individuals and were ranked number 1 among Asian cosmetic manufacturers by WWD Beauty Inc. The Complainant is the owner of the trademark LAURA MERCIER, which is registered in various countries, including in the United States under the Registration No. 2750756, registered on August 12, 2003. The Complainant also owns and operates the website at “www.lauramercier.com”. The disputed domain name was registered on November 27, 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The disputed domain name includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the exception that the letters “i” and “c” are in a different order than in the Complainant’s trademark. This is merely a typographical error also known as typosquatting. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, it is not used for a bona fide offering of goods or services and the Respondent is not making any legitimate or noncommercial fair use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a so called Pay-Per-Click (‘PPC”) website including links to websites featuring the Complainant’s products, a page featuring the Complainant’s products at “www.Macys.com”, and to a malware page. The Respondent is attempting to mislead consumers into a false affiliation between the Respondent and the Complainant. The Respondent is also attempting to profit from the PPC advertising links featured on the Respondent’s website and has attempted to hide its identity by using a privacy service. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to obtain the transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, regardless of whether the respondent files a response to the complaint. The first element is that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights. The second element is that a complainant must prove that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The third element is that a complainant must establish that the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. Consequently, the Complainant must prove that it has rights to a trademark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to this trademark. The disputed domain name consists exclusively of the Complainant’s trademark LAURA MERCIER, with the only exception being that there is a small typographical error in the disputed domain name in that the letter “i” is placed before the letter “c”. The Panel considers that this is a classic example of typosquatting, in which domain names are based merely on the misspelling of another’s trademark in order to confuse Internet users. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s respective trademark and hence the first element of the Policy has been fulfilled. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is widely accepted among UDRP panels that once a complainant has made a prima facie showing indicating the absence of the respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element of the Policy. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270 and section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Complainant has credibly submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has the Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to use and register the disputed domain name, that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent has not made and is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that has not been rebutted by the Respondent. Considering the Panel’s findings below, the Panel finds that there are no other circumstances that provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Therefore, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy is fulfilled. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant establishes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: “(i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [the respondent’s] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location.”. Considering the arguments and evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Panel agrees that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. This knowledge is further underlined by the fact that the disputed domain name is a mere typographical error of the Complainant’s trademark, showing that the Respondent has specifically targeted the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirects to a PPC page containing links to other websites offering goods of the Complainant, a page featuring the Complainant’s products at “www.Macys.com”, and also to a website apparently being used to distribute malware. Clicking such links typically creates revenue for the owner of the disputed domain name or the operator of the website. The disputed domain name is used to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the disputed domain name. This means that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name is offered for sale to the general public and that the Respondent has used a privacy service in order to conceal its identity. Looking at the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that the third element of the Policy is fulfilled. 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 Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Date: March 27, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy