The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0156474513, Canada / a MCCOY, REELARC X KLARNA, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2020. On May 14, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On May 14, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the 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 May 19, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. 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 May 26, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 15, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 18, 2020. On July 6, 2020, the Complainant requested a suspension of the proceeding, and the proceeding was suspended until August 6, 2020, according to the Notification of Suspension. On August 4, 2020, the Center received an informal email communication from the Respondent. On August 5, 2020, the Complainant requested an extension of the suspension, and the proceeding was further suspended until September 6, 2020. On August 18, 2020, the Complainant requested the reinstitution of the proceeding, and the proceeding was reinstituted on August 21, 2020. The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on August 31, 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 one of Europe’s largest banks and provides payment solutions such as direct payments, pay-after-delivery options and instalment plans to 85 million consumers across more than 205,000 merchants in 17 countries, with a global team of over 2,500 employees. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trade mark registrations for the KLARNA mark in various jurisdictions, including, inter alia, the KLARNA international trade mark (Trademark Registration No. 1066079) registered on December 21, 2010, covering classes 35 and 36 and designating China, Norway, Russian Federation, Switzerland, and Turkey. The Complainant also owns and operates the domain name The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on December 15, 2019. At the time of filing of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a “coming soon” page, and currently redirects to “www.reelarc.shop” displaying “Buy now Pay Later. Klarna.” and allowing visitors to purchase certain goods or services online. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant’s primary contentions can be summarised as follows: (a) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KLARNA trade mark, which has been wholly incorporated into the Disputed Domain Name, with the addition of number “6” and English letters “lm”; (b) The Disputed Domain Name has never been used, and has not been put into use, by the Respondent for any bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent was not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has never authorised or given permission to the Respondent, who is not connected with the Complainant in any way, to use its KLARNA trade mark. Therefore, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and (c) the Complainant’s KLARNA trade mark is well known in the financial industry and their registrations predate the creation of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s registered rights in the KLARNA trade mark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. In addition, the fact that the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s email supports a finding of bad faith. As such, the Disputed Domain Name was registered and has been used by the Respondent in bad faith. B. Respondent On August 4, 2020, the Respondent sent an email communication indicating “[t]he domain is now shut down and [no] longer in use”. However, the Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The fact that the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant. However, the Respondent’s failure to file a Response may result in the Panel drawing appropriate inferences from such default. The Panel may also accept all reasonable and supported allegations and inferences flowing from the Complainant as true (see Entertainment Shopping AG v. Nischal Soni, Sonik Technologies,WIPO Case No. D2009-1437 and Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM,WIPO Case No. D2000-0403). 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the following three elements: (i) the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark 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 by the Respondent in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel accepts that the Complainant has rights in the KLARNA trade mark, based on its various trade mark registrations. It is well established that in making an enquiry as to whether a trade mark is identical or confusingly similar to a domain name, the Top-Level Domain extension (“.com” in this case) may be disregarded. See section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s KLARNA mark in its entirety with the addition of number “6” and English letters “lm”. UDRP panels have consistently found that the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) to a mark will not alter the fact that the domain name at issue is confusingly similar to the mark in question. See section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The mere addition of number “6” and English letters “lm” therefore does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant’s KLARNA trade mark. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KLARNA trade mark, and accordingly, paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Once a complainant establishes a prima facie case in respect of the lack of rights or legitimate interests of a respondent in a disputed domain name, the respondent then carries the burden of demonstrating that it has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Where the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Panel accepts that the Complainant has not authorised the Respondent to use the KLARNA trade mark, and there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, which would otherwise entitle the Respondent to use the KLARNA mark. Accordingly, the Panel is of the view that a prima facie case has been established and it is for the Respondent to show rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. As the Respondent has not submitted a formal Response, the Panel will assess the case based on the reasonable inferences that can be drawn from the Complainant’s evidence. Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name by demonstrating any of the following: (i) before any notice to him of the dispute, the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, even if he has acquired no trade mark or service mark rights; or (iii) the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trade mark or service mark at issue. There is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name was in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, since the Disputed Domain Name previously resolved to a “coming soon” page, and currently redirects to a website at “www.reelarc.shop” that simply allows visitors to purchase certain goods or services but it is unclear what these goods or services entail as the website does not provide any useful description or information in this respect. The website also displays “Buy now Pay Later. Klarna.” and contains broken links and an empty navigation bar. Therefore, it cannot be said that such use by the Respondent constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is also no evidence that the Respondent has trade mark rights corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name, or that it has become commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. Further, no evidence has been provided to suggest that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with any legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name and the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith UDRP panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a widely-known trade mark by an unaffiliated entity (particularly domain names which incorporate a mark plus a descriptive term) can already by itself create a presumption of bad faith. See paragraph 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. The Complainant’s KLARNA trade mark appears to be well known. A quick Internet search conducted by the Panel shows that the top search results returned for the keyword “Klarna” are the Complainant’s official website and affiliated social media pages. Therefore, the Panel accepts the Complainant’s argument that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its rights in the KLARNA mark. As such, the fact that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s KLARNA mark in its entirety creates a presumption of bad faith. In addition, the Panel finds that the following factors further support a finding that the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith: (i) the Respondent failed to formally respond to the Complainant’s contentions and has provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use by it of the Disputed Domain Name. Rather, the Respondent claims that the Disputed Domain Name is shut down and no longer in use; (ii) the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name using a privacy shield to conceal its identity in the WhoIs records (see Primonial v. Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org / Parla Turkmenoglu,WIPO Case No. D2019-0193); and (iii) at the time of filing of the Complaint, the Disputed Domain Name resolved to a “coming soon” page. It is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Name that would amount to good faith use, given the Disputed Domain Name is at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KLARNA trade marks. Any use of the Disputed Domain Name would likely mislead Internet users into believing the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name currently redirects to “www.reelarc.shop” displaying “Buy now Pay Later. Klarna.” and allowing visitors to purchase certain goods or services online. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent registered and has been using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, and paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied. 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 Gabriela Kennedy
Sole Panelist
Date: September 14, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy