The Complainant is Revlon Consumer Products Corporation of New York, United States of America, represented by an internal representative.
The Respondent is Sky Logic Europe CV of Hoorn, Netherlands. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and (the “Domain Names”) are registered with GoD, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2011. On February 28, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On the same date, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 14, 2011. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 3, 2011. On March 14, 2011, the Respondent sent an email communication indicating its willingness to transfer to the Complainant the disputed domain names. The Center acknowledged the Respondent’s email communication on March 15, 2011, and informed the Complainant about suspension. On March 16, 2011, the Complainant indicated that it was not going to submit a request for suspension. Thereafter, the Respondent sent another email communication on March 17, 2011. The Respondent did not submit a formal Response.
The Center appointed Nicoletta Colombo as the sole panelist in this matter on April 15, 2011. 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 the owner of the trademark REVLON, which is registered around the world and also in Colombia for a variety of goods in various international classes and has been used for over 75 years. The Complainant and certain of its affiliates, including Revlon Professional Holding Company LLC (“RPHC”) are the owners of the trademark REVLON PROFESSIONAL for hair care products and related goods, which is registered around the world and in Colombia for a variety of goods and services in various international classes and has been in use for over 15 years.
The Complainant has manufactured, marketed and sold beauty products under the REVLON trademark continuously since 1932; REVLON is one of the world’s best-known names in cosmetics and beauty care products and is a leading mass-market global cosmetics brand. Revlon products are sold approximately in 175 countries, through wholly-owned subsidiaries in 14 countries and through a large number of distributors and licensees elsewhere around the world.
The Complainant is the owner of over 700 domain names; more than 350 of these domain names incorporate the REVLON trademark and variations thereof; 6 of them incorporate the REVLON PROFESSIONAL trademark.
The Respondent registered the disputed Domain Names on July 28, 2010. The websites are active and contain sponsored links for dating services with Russian individuals. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant contends the following:
(a) The disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the trademarks owned by the Complainant because:
- they reproduce the words of the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety;
- the addition of the word “cosmetics” in one of the disputed Domain Names does not detract from associating them to the trademark of the Complainant;
- the addition of the top-level domain “.co” does not have any impact on the overall impression of the dominant portion of the Domain Names and they are therefore irrelevant to determine the confusing similarity between the trademark and Domain Names.
(b) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect to the Domain Names because:
- the Respondent has no registered trademarks or trade names corresponding to the Domain Names;
- the Complainant has never given to the Respondent any license or authorization to use the REVLON and REVLON PROFESSIONAL trademarks, nor is the Respondent an authorized dealer;
- it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s legal right on the REVLON brand at the time of the registration of the disputed Domain Names.
(c) The Domain Names were registered and are being used in bad faith because:
- the trademarks REVLON and REVLON PROFESSIONAL belonging to the Complainant have the status of a well-known trademarks, with a substantial and widespread reputation throughout the world and also in Colombia; therefore the Respondent at the time of the registration of the disputed Domain Names was surely aware of the trademarks of the Complainant and in particular the Respondent could not ignore the strong notoriety and world renown of the Complainant’s trademarks;
- the Respondent is not using the disputed Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services but it is instead using them to generate traffic to its website;
- the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Names to Complainant for USD 1,600 and this offer has been considered unreasonable and excessive. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not submit a formal Response. After the parties were notified of the appointment of the Panel, the Respondent sent an email communication on April 15, 2011 saying the following: “We do not really understand this actions, from first moment Revlon mailed the registration in Colombia we agreed to transfer this domains, and never told different, so we not see any reason, Revlon offered 100 $ and we offered transfer them for free. We have never intent to make money with this domain and/or keep them…”. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Domain Names and incorporate the word “Revlon” which constitutes the Complainant’s trademark.
The only difference between the disputed Domain Names and the trademark of the Complainant is the addition of the words “cosmetics” and “professional”. The addition of the mentioned words, which are generic terms, do not add a distinctive element to the disputed Domain Names and do not render them dissimilar to the trademark of the Complainant. Moreover, such addition increases the likelihood of confusion between the Domain Names and the Complainant’s trademark, because the terms “cosmetics” and “professional” are simply strengthening the bond and relation with the REVLON trademark itself.
There are numerous UDRP decisions stating that confusing similarity, for the purposes of the Policy, is established inter alia when a domain name wholly incorporates a complainant’s mark and only adds a generic word along with it (see i.e., F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v. Bobik Marley, WIPO Case No. D2007-0694; Deceuninck nvand Thyssen Polymer GmbH v. Dmitriy Beloussov, WIPO Case No. D2007-0347; Société des Bains de Mer et du Cercle des Etrangers à Monaco v. LaPorte Holdings, LLC.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0526).
Additionally, the Panel does not consider, when analyzing the identity or similarity, the suffix - in this case “.co” - because it is a necessary component of the Domain Names and does not give any distinctiveness (see i.e., Crédit Industriel et Commercial SA v. Name Privacy,WIPO Case No. D2005-0457).
Therefore the Panel finds that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Complainant has several trademark registrations for REVLON all over the world. Therefore it has been proven that the Complainant has rights in the REVLON trademark.
The Respondent has not filed any response in this case but sent an e-mail to the Center in which it declares that it is not interested in keeping the disputed Domain Names. Therefore, there is prima facie indication in the evidence provided to the Panel that there are no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names, on the part of the Respondent, see paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
Moreover, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted or authorized the Respondent to use the well-known trademark REVLON, nor has the Respondent been authorized to register and use the disputed Domain Names.
Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed Domain Names. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Domain Names are used by the Respondent to offer dating services for Russian individuals. The Respondent must have been aware of the existence of the REVLON mark and the related trademarks owned and used by the Complainant. Only someone who was familiar with the Complainant’s mark would have registered domain names confusingly similar to such mark.
The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent has registered the disputed Domain Names with the intent to profit from the reputation of the well-known trademark of the Complainant by using said Domain Names which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s marks to attract users to its own web sites.
Taken together with the fact that the Respondent has not filed any formal Response in this proceeding in support of any good faith registration or use, but instead declared in a e-mail sent to the Center that it is not interested in keeping the disputed Domain Names, the Panel believes that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed Domain Names have been registered and 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 Names and be transferred to the Complainant.
Nicoletta Colombo
Sole Panelist
Dated: April 27, 2011
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy