The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Sikavin Petr Yakovlovich, Russian Federation. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 3, 2020. On March 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 4, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 9, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 29, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 30, 2020. The Center appointed Debrett G. Lyons as the sole panelist in this matter on April 7, 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 factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that: (1) the Complainant is a Swedish company which provides financial services by reference to the trade mark KLARNA (the “Trade Mark”); (2) the Trade Mark is the subject, inter alia, of International Registration No. 1066079 registered on December 21, 2010, designating the Russian Federation and other countries; (3) the disputed domain name was registered on November 8, 2019 and redirects to the Complainant’s official website; and (4) there is no commercial or other relationship between the Parties and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use the Trade Mark or to register any domain name incorporating the Trade Mark. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts Trade Mark rights in KLARNA. It holds national and international registrations for the Trade Mark and submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it has no trade mark rights; it is not known by the disputed domain name; and the use of the disputed domain name is not bona fide. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant accordingly requests the Panel to order transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not submit a Response. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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. It is the responsibility of the Panel to consider whether the requirements of the Policy have been met, regardless of the fact that the Respondent failed to submit a response. Having considered the Complaint and the available evidence, the Panel finds the following: A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry–a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trade mark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trade mark. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trade mark rights. It is accepted that a trade mark registered with a national authority is evidence of trade mark rights for the purposes of the Policy.1 The Complainant provides evidence of its International registration of the Trade Mark and so the Panel finds that the Complainant has trade mark rights. For the purposes of comparing the disputed domain name with the Trade Mark, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org” can be disregarded.2 The Complainant’s submission is that the compared terms are confusingly similar. The argument assumes that the Trade Mark is the distinctive element of the disputed domain name. The Panel notes that “klarna” is a dictionary word in Swedish but not one connected in any obvious way with the Complainant’s services nor, of itself, so common as to be inherently non-distinctive. The additional element, “cdn”, has no apparent meaning to the Panel. The Complaint merely states that “‘CDN’ is used for Complainant’s library for branding visuals”. The Complainant’s December 30, 2019 letter of demand to the Respondent stated that “the word ‘CDN’ is used for Klarna website developers”. Neither statement satisfactorily establishes whether or not the letters are descriptive or otherwise generic. All they suggest is that they are used by or connected with the Complainant in some sense. The Panel ultimately finds that this matters little since in its assessment the dominant aural and visual feature of the disputed domain name is the Trade Mark. Since the Trade Mark is recognisable in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has the burden to establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Nevertheless, it is well settled that the Complainant need only make out a prima facie case, after which the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to rebut such prima facie case by providing evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.3 Notwithstanding the lack of a response to the Complaint, paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy: (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” As confirmed with the Registrar Verification information received from the concerned Registrar, the disputed domain name registrant is “Sikavin Petr Yakovlovich”, which does not suggest that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Panel finds no other evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Further, the Complainant states that there is no association between the Parties and there is nothing to contradict that claim. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any trade mark rights. The disputed domain name resolves to the Complainant’s own official website. Numerous prior UDRP cases have held that such redirection to a complainant’s own website is not use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent in failing to reply to the Complainant’s contentions has not rebutted such prima facie case. The Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and so the Complainant has satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out circumstances, which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. They are: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have 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 your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” The Panel finds that none of those four scenarios is more applicable that the simple findings of bad faith registration and bad faith use. The redirection to the Complainant’s website shows that the Respondent knew of and targeted the Complainant and its Trade Mark at the time it created the disputed domain name. The Panel finds registration in bad faith. Further, the redirection itself is use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the third and final element 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 Debrett G. Lyons 1 See section 1.2.1 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). 2 See section 1.11.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. 3 See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web,WIPO Case No. D2000-0624.
Sole Panelist
Date: April 20, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy