The Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America (“United States”) / Warren Dunn, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 14, 2020. On February 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 17, 2020, 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 February 18, 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 February 20, 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 28, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 19, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2020. On March 20, 2020, the Respondent submitted an informal communication to the Center offering to delete the disputed domain name. On March 23, 2020, the Center received an email from the Complainant requesting suspension of the proceeding. A Notification of Suspension was sent by the Center on March 23, 2020. On April 20, 2020, the Center received a request to reinstitute the proceeding from the Complainant. The proceeding was reinstituted on April 21, 2020 and proceeded to Panel appointment. The Center appointed Martin Michaus Romero as the sole panelist in this matter on April 30, 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 1) The Complainant, is a French industrial group specialized in the field in cosmetics and beauty on the global market. 2) It has a portfolio of international brands covers all lines of cosmetic: haircare, coloring, skincare, makeup and perfume. 3) The Complainant’s brands are managed within its group by divisions that each have expertise in their own distribution channel. This makes it possible to respond to every consumer’s expectation according to his or her habits and lifestyle but also to adapted to local distribution conditions, anywhere in the world. 4) It has a portfolio of 36 brands employs 86,000 employees and is present in 150 countries. Some of the most relevant for this matter are: a) International Trademark L’OREAL No. 184970, protected in, inter alia, Serbia, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Romania, Egypt, Mongolia, Viet Nam, Morocco, registered on May 23, 1955 duly renewed, and covering goods in class 3 and 5. b) International Trademark L’OREAL No. 230114 protected in, inter alia,, Austria, The Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbia, Slovenia, Slovakia, registered on March 28, 1960, duly renewed and covering goods in class 1 to 34. c) United States trademark L’OREAL No. 540541, filed on May 11, 1950 and registered on April 3, 1951, duly renewed, covering goods in classes 3 and 5. 5) It operates among others domain name 6) The disputed domain name, 7) The disputed domain name redirects internet users to a pornographic website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states in its Complaint that the Respondent: 1) Registered the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s well-known trademark L’OREAL, without the Complainant’s knowledge or authorization. 2) Registered the disputed domain name, which included the L’OREAL trademark, to create confusion in Internet consumers that the disputed domain name is affiliated with the Complainant. 3) Has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. 4) Likely intended to confuse the Complainant’s customers or potential customers, considering the complete reproduction of the L’OREAL trademark in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name was selected, registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith and not for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any fair use, but rather to mislead Internet users, disrupt the Complainant’s business, and affect the reputation or notoriety of the L’OREAL trademark. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. On March 20, 2020, the Respondent submitted an informal communication offering to delete the disputed domain name. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its Decision on the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the L’OREAL trademark. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s L’OREAL trademark. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark L’OREAL, with the addition of the word “see”. The L’OREAL trademark is included in the disputed domain name, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), ”.com”, as well as the addition of the word “see”, do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the L’OREAL trademark. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not received permission or authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent did not substantively reply to the Complainant’s contentions, and therefore has not provided any evidence to demonstrate anything to the contrary. It should be pointed out that nothing in the available record indicates that the Respondent is an individual, business, or corporation known by the name “loreal”. Furthermore, the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate or noncommercial fair use that might give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or owned a trademark or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name redirects internet users to a pornographic website, and such situation does not qualify as a legitimate right or interest under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, it is clear to the Panel that the registration and the use of the disputed domain name has been in bad faith, by including the L’OREAL trademark, to intentionally attract Internet users for commercial gain. The inclusion of the gTLD “.com” in the disputed domain name attempts to deceive or lead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name is operated by the Complainant, as it is almost identical to the Complainant’s domain name The Respondent has demonstrated, by registering the disputed domain name which reproduces the Complainant’s trademark, an intent to capitalize on the goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent 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 L’OREAL trademark. These activities constitute, in view of the Panel, clear evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainants L’OREAL trademark registrations predate the registration date of the disputed domain name and Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainants trademark rights, considering the notoriety and worldwide reputation of the mark. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of Complainants rights in set trademark. The use of the disputed domain name to redirect internet users towards a pornographic website, as it has been stated, is sufficient to support a finding of bad faith and could also affect the goodwill and reputation of the well-known trademark L’OREAL. The Respondent seeks to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation and/or endorsement of the Respondent’s website. This also negatively affects the Complainant’s online presence and disrupts the Complainant’s business. See paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 4(b)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant satisfies 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 Martín Michaus Romero
Sole Panelist
Date: May 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy