The Complainant is LOréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States of America / CvxzvDFS Dfdsafds, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 10, 2021. On June 10, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 10, 2021, 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 June 20, 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 amended Complaint on June 22, 2021. 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 June 24, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2021. The Center appointed Steven A. Maier as the sole panelist in this matter on August 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 company registered in France, specializing in the field of cosmetic and beauty products. Its divisions include Maybelline New York, being a cosmetics brand known for mascara and other beauty products. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the mark MAYBELLINE, including for example: - European Union Trade Mark number 7598031 for the word mark MAYBELLINE, registered on October 22, 2009 in International Class 3 - China trademark number 21270 for the word mark MAYBELLINE, registered on September 18, 1984 in International Class 3. The Complainant is also the registrant of domain names including The disputed domain name was registered on September 17, 2020. The disputed domain name has resolved to a website offering pornographic content. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant submits that its MAYBELLINE mark represents the world’s leading cosmetics brand, available in over 120 countries. It provides evidence concerning the history and commercial profile of the mark. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MAYBELLINE trademark, differing from that mark only be the inclusion of an additional letter “e”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It states that it has never licensed or authorized the Respondent to use its MAYBELLINE trademark, that the Respondent has not been known by that name and that the Respondent is making neither bona fide commercial use nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Instead, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name represents an obvious case of “typosquatting” and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirect to a pornographic website which damages the Complainant’s reputation. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered and has been used in bad faith. It contends that the Respondent was clearly aware of its MAYBELLINE trademark when it registered the disputed domain name, owing to the obvious connection between the disputed domain name and that well-known mark. It contends that disputed domain name represents “typosquatting” and that the Respondent could have chosen that name only to create confusion among Internet users and to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s MAYBELLINE trademark. The Complainant adds that that the diversion of Internet users to a pornographic website clearly damages the Complainant’s reputation and that the registration details provided by the Respondent are manifestly false. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to succeed in the Complaint, the Complainant is required to show that all three of the elements set out under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are present. Those elements are: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 are being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established that it has registered trademark rights in the mark MAYBELLINE. The disputed domain name differs from that trademark only by the inclusion of an additional letter “e”, which does not prevent the disputed domain name from being confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In the view of the Panel, the Complainant’s submissions set out above give rise to a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not filed a Response in this proceeding and has not submitted any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name, or evidence of rights or legitimate interests on its part in the disputed domain name, whether in the circumstances contemplated by paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or otherwise. The Panel therefore concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the Complainant’s trademark MAYBELLINE is both distinctive and widely known. The Respondent having provided no explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name, the Panel can only reasonably infer that the Respondent chose that name in the knowledge of the Complainant’s MAYBELLINE trademark and with the intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill attaching to that trademark. The Panel finds further that the disputed domain name is inherently misleading and constitutes an impersonation of the Complainant, its MAYBELLINE trademark and its The Panel finds that, by using the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a pornographic website, the Respondent has intentionally attempted 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, or endorsement of its website or of a product or service on its website (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy). The Panel finds further that, by associating the disputed domain name with a pornographic website, the Respondent is likely to have caused damage to the Complainant’s reputation. The Panel also accepts the Complainant’s submission that the registration details provided by the Complainant are, on their face, obviously false. The Panel concludes in all the circumstances that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Steven A. Maier
Sole Panelist
Date: August 22, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy