The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Withheld for Privacy Purposes, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / Gabriella Garlo, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The Disputed Domain Name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2021. On July 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On July 6, 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 July 7, 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 July 12, 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 July 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2021. The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on August 9, 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, Klarna Bank AB, 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 has owned registrations for the KLARNA trademark since 2010, such as International trademark with registration no. 1066079, registered on December 21, 2010. The Complainant 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. In 2019, the company handled about USD 35 billion in online sales and registered revenue of USD 75.3 crores. As on date, it has approx. 3,500 employees, most of them working at the headquarters in Stockholm, Sweden, and with over 1 million transactions per day. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on February 1, 2021, and resolved to a website with pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. The Disputed Domain Name was offered for sale for a minimum price of USD 500 using the SEDO service. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant, Klarna Bank AB, 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. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for KLARNA around the world. The Complainant 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 Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom and United States of America. As of 2011, about 40 percent of all e-commerce sales in Sweden went through the Complainant. In 2019, the company handled about USD 35 billion in online sales and registered revenue of USD 753 Million. The Complainant employs 3,500, and handles over 1 million transactions per day, Since 2016, it has been successful in over 30 UDRP matters including Klarna SB v. Willi Ehrlich, Insulaner e.K,WIPO Case No. D2016-2182; Klarna AB v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. D2017-0220; Klarna AB v. Zhangwei, WIPO Case No. DCO2017-0006; Klarna AB v. Syed Hussain, Domain Management MIC,WIPO Case No. D2018-1189; Klarna AB v. Pan Jing,WIPO Case No. D2019-1325; Klarna Bank AB v. 钱梦聃 (qianmengdan),WIPO Case No. D2020-2514; and Klarna Bank AB v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Melanie Forster, WIPO Case No. D2021‑0756. The Complainant holds registrations for the trademark KLARNA under different classes – 9, 35, 36, 39, 42, 45 – in multiple jurisdictions around the world since 2010, including but not limited to the European Union, WIPO (International Registration), United States of America, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, India and China, including International Trademark registrations No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014; No. 1182130 registered on August 1, 2013; and No. 1066079, registered on December 21, 2010. The Disputed Domain Name The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way to make use of the KLARNA trademark. The Complainant’s registered trademark is a distinctive term, exclusively associated with the Complainant. The Complainant has not authorized the Respondent either as a licensee, vendor, supplier, distributor, or customer relations agent for the Complainant’s services. Any person or entity using the trademark / company name KLARNA in any manner is bound to lead customers and users to infer that its product or service has an association or nexus with the Complainant and lead to confusion and deception. It is indeed extremely difficult to foresee any justifiable use that the Respondent may have with the Disputed Domain Name. The parking page to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves is designed to lure consumers in search of its well-known KLARNA brand to redirect to third party websites. The use of PPC links upon any of the Disputed Domain Name only reinforces the (false) association between the strong and exclusive trademark KLARNA. A search using the Google search engine for “klarna careers” provides many references only to the Complainant. The Respondent is not intending to make a fair use of the Disputed Domain Name but clearly intending to have a free ride on its reputation and goodwill. Further, the WhoIs page provided by the Registrar links to a pop-up page (powered by SEDO), offering the Disputed Domain Name for sale for a minimum offer of USD 500. WIPO Overview of Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.9 states that when applying UDRP paragraph 4(c), UDRP panels have found that the use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users The Complainant tried to contact the Respondent on April 26, 2021 through a cease and desist letter in which the Complainant advised the Respondent that the unauthorized use of its trademarks within the Disputed Domain Name violated its trademark rights and the Complainant requested a voluntary transfer of the Disputed Domain Name. A reminder was sent on May 21, 2021. The Respondent never replied. The failure of a respondent to respond to a cease and desist letter, or a similar attempt at contact, has been considered relevant in a finding of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for KLARNA around the world, including International Trademark registrations No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014; No. 1182130 registered on August 1, 2013; and No. 1066079, registered on December 21, 2010. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA in addition to the gTLD “.careers”. The use of the gTLD “careers” does not prevent a finding of the Disputed Domain Name being identical to the Complainant’s trademark, as the gTLD is viewed as a standard registration requirement. As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the Disputed Domain Name or to use the trademark. It further asserts that because its trademark is unique and The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and the burden is thus on the Respondent to produce evidence to rebut this presumption. The Respondent has not responded and thus failed to provide evidence that she has acquired any trademark rights in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, that the Disputed Domain Name has been used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or any other circumstances that may give rise to rights or legitimate interests. The record shows that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website depicting PPC links, which use is neither a legitimate noncommercial use nor a fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, there is no evidence to rebut the Complainant’s contention that in view of the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the Disputed Domain Name, and its website deploying PPC links engender confusion as to association with the Complainant, and therefore the Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods. Additionally, there is no evidence to show that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and in fact the record shows that she used a privacy service at first to conceal her identity. Finally, the Panel may make negative inferences based on the Respondent’s failure to respond, and finds that the Complainant’s prima facie case is unrebutted. The Panel 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 Complainant alleges that it is one of Europe’s largest banks. Published reports suggest that the Complainant is valued at USD 45 Billion. The Complainant asserts that it has prevailed in 30 UDRP proceedings. At least one previous UDRP panel has found that the Complainant’s KLARNA trademark is famous, while another finds that the Complainant is known within the banking and finance industry. See Klarna AB v. Pan Jing,WIPO Case No. D2019-1325; and Klarna Bank AB v. Qianmengdan钱梦聃 (qianmengdan), supra. The Complainant’s KLARNA trademark predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Second-Level Domain of the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s KLARNA trademark, and the Complainant uses the term “careers” on its website at “www.klarna.com/careers/”, being the Disputed Domain Name registered with the gTLD “.careers”. Additionally, the Panel notes that payments companies are often targeted by cybersquatters. Considering this record, and considering as well the Respondent’s failure to submit a response or provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Panel finds that it is beyond doubt that the Respondent targeted the Complainant. The record shows that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to host a webpage providing PPC links. The record further shows that the Respondent has offered the Disputed Domain Name for sale through the SEDO website, at a price allegedly above the estimated registration fee. Finally, the Panel may make negative inferences as a result of the Respondent’s failure to respond both to the Complaint in this proceeding and to the Complainant’s demand letters. Clearly, the Respondent is attempting to trade off the Complainant’s reputation in its KLARNA trademark in some fashion. The Panel therefore finds 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 Martin Schwimmer
well-known, users will erroneously infer that the Complainant is the source of goods or services offered in connection with the Disputed Domain Name.
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy