The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / Jeff Weller, Think 7 Inc., United States. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2021. On May 21, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 23, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 28, 2021 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 2, 2021. 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 4, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 24, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 25, 2021. The Center appointed Alistair Payne as the sole panelist in this matter on July 8, 2021. 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 Swedish e-commerce company that provides payment services for online storefronts, that include direct payments, pay after delivery options and installment plans in a one-click purchase flow. It was founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden. It is currently one of Europe’s largest banks and is providing payment solutions for over 90 million consumers across 200,000 merchants in 17 countries including the United States. In 2019, the company handled about 35 billion crones in online sales and registered revenue of 75.3 crores. It has approx. 3,500 employees, most of them working at the headquarters in Stockholm and processes over 1 million transactions per day. The Complainant owns trade mark registrations for its KLARNA mark in various countries including International trade mark registration 1182130 registered on August 1, 2013 which is designated, in particular, in the United States. The Complainant owns various domain name registrations that incorporate its KLARNA mark including The disputed domain names were all registered on February 5, 2021 through the same domain name registrar and resolve to a parking page that includes hyperlinks featuring keywords like “Online Shop”, “Local Text”, “Download” that link to advertisements by third parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that it owns registered trade mark rights as set out above for its highly distinctive, coined KLARNA mark. It says that each of the disputed domain names differ from the Complainant’s KLARNA mark by the interchange of letters, or the addition of a letter “e” and amount to a typo-squatting form of the Complainant’s registered KLARNA trade mark. The Complainant notes that under section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where a domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark it is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Complainant submits that in this case each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its KLARNA registered trade mark. The Complainant submits that it has painstakingly built up a good reputation not only in Europe but also in other countries and also invested a substantial amount of resources in promoting its product under the mark KLARNA. It says that each of the disputed domain names have a recent registration date of February 5, 2021 while the Complainant has been using the KLARNA mark for over a decade. Each of the disputed domain names, says the Complainant, are misspellings of the Complainant’s registered KLARNA mark, which is referred to as typo-squatting. The Complainant’s registered mark KLARNA is a distinctive term and is exclusively associated with the Complainant such that one would not legitimately choose a similar domain name without having specific rights to such mark. It submits that the disputed domain names registered by the Respondent are clearly intended to pass-off the rights in the Complainant’s mark and to free ride on its reputation and goodwill by resolving to a website that features sponsored links to third party websites and redirects website visitors to the providers of competing goods. As a result, says the Complainant, the Respondent collects click-through revenue which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. In short, the Complainant says that the Respondent had no legitimate right to incorporate the Complainant’s typo-squatting form of mark in each of the disputed domain names. It says that neither the WhoIs information nor the Respondent’s own website gives any indication that the Respondent is known by Klarna/Klaerna/Klearna/Lkarna or any similar names, either as an individual, business, or any other organisation. The Complainant says that it has not permitted or licensed the Respondent to use the KLARNA mark in any manner. Further, in view of the prior rights of the Complainant in the trade mark KLARNA over the last decade and the enormous goodwill and reputation attaching to it, it is evident, says the Complainant, that the sole purpose of the Respondent in registering each of the disputed domain names was to take undue advantage of the Complainant’s KLARNA mark. Further says the Complainant, the MX records for all the disputed domain names are active which indicates that email IDs have been or are planned to be used for phishing, spamming or other illegal activities and the Complainant notes that they already point to: As far as bad faith is concerned the Complainant submits that its KLARNA mark is a distinctive term and that it has been put to use by the Complainant exclusively since 2005. Considering the immense popularity and goodwill enjoyed by the Complainant's trademark globally by virtue of its open, continuous and extensive use and of its considerable market reputation, it is clear says the Complainant that its KLARNA trade mark is well known and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in 2021 with full knowledge of the Complainant’s mark and rights. According to the Complainant, even a preliminary Internet search would have indicated to the Respondent the web presence of its KLARNA mark, quite apart from its extensive social media presence. It says that the fact that each of the disputed domain names appears to be a typo-squatting of the Complainant’s KLARNA mark is further evidence of the Respondent’s knowledge of its mark at the date of registration of the disputed domain names and of itself is evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith. In terms of use in bad faith, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s diversion of each of the disputed domain names to pay-per-click (“PPC”) parking pages amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. In this regard the Complainant notes that the links on these pages are through keywords such as “Online Shop”, “Local Text”, “Download” which link to third party advertisements by competitors of the Complainant. Moreover, says the Complainant, the fact that the MX records for all the disputed domain names are active indicates an intention on behalf of the Respondent to use the disputed domain names in connection with a phishing scheme or in connection with the distribution of malware. It submits that using a domain name for any of these purposes amounts to bad faith under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated that it owns registered trade mark rights and specifically International trade mark registration 1182130 registered on 1 August 2013 which is designated, in particular, in the United States for its KLARNA mark. Each of the disputed domain names differ from the Complainant’s KLARNA mark by the interchange of letters, or the addition of a letter “e”. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that this amounts to a typo-squatting form of the Complainant’s registered KLARNA trade mark. Under section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where a domain name consists of a common, obvious, or intentional misspelling of a trade mark it is considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. The Panel agrees with the Complainant that this is the case for each of the disputed domain names which are each confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trade mark for KLARNA. As a result, the Complaint succeeds under the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is apparent that the Complainant’s KLARNA mark is a coined term with no obvious meaning and that it enjoys a very substantial goodwill and reputation which has been built-up in connection with the Complainant’s business over the last decade. In circumstances that each of the disputed domain names are misspellings of the Complainant’s registered KLARNA mark the Panel finds that the Respondent’s conduct in registering each of them and using each of them to divert to PPC parking pages amounts to typosquatting and also the diversion of Internet users seeking the Complainant’s business, which is not bona fide conduct and is not consistent with the Respondent having rights or legitimate interests in each of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that this does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy. Further, the Complainant has submitted that neither the WhoIs information nor the Respondent’s own website gives any indication that the Respondent is known by Klarna/Klaerna/Klearna/Lkarna or any similar names, either as an individual, business, or as any other organisation. The Complainant has also submitted that it has not permitted or licensed the Respondent to use the KLARNA mark in any manner. It has also alleged that the MX records for each of the disputed domain names are active which indicates that email IDs have been or are planned to be used for phishing, spamming or other illegal activities and that they already point to The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. As the Respondent has failed to respond, or to rebut the Complainant’s case and also considering the Panel’s finding, as discussed above, that the Respondent’s conduct amounts to typosquatting, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Complaint also succeeds under this element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant’s KLARNA mark is a coined and highly distinctive term and that it has been put to substantial use in numerous countries since 2005. It clearly enjoys a very substantial goodwill and reputation in many countries. It is quite apparent that even a preliminary Internet search would have indicated to the Respondent the web presence of the Complainant’s KLARNA mark, including its extensive social media presence. Most importantly, with respect to each of the typo-squatted disputed domain names which include the Complainant’s coined and highly distinctive KLARNA mark, it is apparent that the Respondent must have had knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark and rights when it registered each of the disputed domain names in 2021. Typosquatting is in and of itself evidence of use in bad faith (see for example National Association of Professional Baseball Leagues v. Zuccarini,WIPO Case No. D2002-1011). As discussed under Sections A and B above the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration of each of the disputed domain names amounts to typosquatting. Under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy the use of a disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of a web site or location or of a product or service on the web site amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith. In addition, each of the disputed domain names in this case resolve to a parking page featuring PPC links, at least some of which according to the Complainant ultimately resolve to its competitors. The Panel finds that the Respondent has used each of the disputed domain names containing a misspelt “typosquatted” version of the Complainant’s coined and distinctive KLARNA mark to divert Internet users to a parking page featuring PPC links from which the Respondent most likely earns revenue. This amounts to evidence of registration and use in bad faith in terms of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The fact that the Respondent failed to respond to the cease and desist letter sent by the Complainant’s legal representatives on April 12, 2021 and that the MX records for each of the disputed domain names are active which might indicate a possible intention on behalf of the Respondent to use the disputed domain names in connection with a phishing scheme or in connection with the distribution of malware, only serves to reinforce the Panel’s view of the Respondent’s bad faith with respect to each of the disputed domain names under the Policy. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has both registered and used each of the disputed domain names in bad faith and the Complaint therefore also succeeds under this 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 names Alistair Payne
Sole Panelist
Date: July 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy