ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION L’Oréal v. Mr. Milad Rezakhah Case No. DIR2025-0006 1. The Parties The Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Mr. Milad Rezakhah, Iran (Islamic Republic of). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with IRNIC. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 17, 2025. On July 17, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2025, IRNIC 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 (Registrant Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 21, 2025, 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 July 21, 2025. Hard copies of the Complaint were received by the Center on July 23, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint and the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 July 25, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 14, 2025. On August 15, 2025, the Center notified the Respondent’s default. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on August 20, 2025. 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.
page 2 The Panel has not received any requests from the Complainant or the Respondent regarding further submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not found it necessary to request any further information from the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to the Respondent”. Therefore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benefit of a response from the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is L’Oréal, a French company founded in 1909, operating in the cosmetics field as one of the world’s largest groups, and owning several trademark registrations worldwide for CERAVE, among which the following one: - International Trademark Registration No. 1365989 for CERAVE, registered on June 15, 2017. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its main website for the CERAVE products being at “www.cerave.fr”. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the information received from the Registry, the disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on November 17, 2024, and it resolves to a website in Persian, in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced and the Complainant’s CERAVE products are purportedly offered for sale. On April 30, 2025, the Complainant’s legal representatives sent a notification to the hosting provider requesting the deactivation of the infringing website, followed by multiple reminders, without receiving any response. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark CERAVE, the latter being incorporated in its entirety in the disputed domain name. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in Persian, in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced and the Complainant’s CERAVE products are purportedly offered for sale. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, since the Complainant’s trademark CERAVE is well known in the cosmetics field. Therefore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the
page 3 Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to the Respondent’s website, creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualifies as bad faith registration and use. Finally, the Complainant suspects that the Respondent might also use the disputed domain name in connection with phishing or fraudulent email communications, since the mail exchanger (MX) records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in default. In reference to paragraphs 5(e) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the default have been put forward or are apparent from the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable facts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inferences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3.1 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisfy in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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 or is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant is the owner of the trademark CERAVE both by registration and acquired reputation. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here “iran” and a hyphen, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. It is also well accepted that a country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”), in this case “.ir”, is typically ignored when assessing the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11. The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore met its burden of proving that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i). 1 In light of the substantive and procedural similarities between the irDRP and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel has cited decisions under the UDRP and the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), where appropriate.
page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name by demonstrating in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant has the burden of proving the three elements of the Policy. However, satisfying the burden of proving a lack of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is potentially quite difficult, since proving a negative circumstance is generally more complicated than establishing a positive one. As such, it is well accepted that it is sufficient for the Complainant to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to shift the burden of production to the Respondent. If the Respondent fails to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in accordance with paragraph 4(c) of the Policy or on any other basis, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant in its Complaint, and as set out above, has established a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. It asserts that the Respondent, who is not currently associated with the Complainant in any way, is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use or in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The prima facie case presented by the Complainant is enough to shift the burden of production to the Respondent to demonstrate that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent has not presented any evidence of any rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name. Should the Complainant’s products sold on the website to which the disputed domain name is directing Internet users be genuine products, legitimately acquired by the Respondent, the question that would arise is whether the Respondent would therefore have any rights or legitimate interests in using the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark in circumstances that are likely to give rise to confusion. According to the current state of UDRP decisions in relation to the issue of resellers as summarized in the WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.1: “[...] resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the ‘Oki Data test’, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;
page 5 (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to ‘corner the market’ in domain names that reflect the trademark.” This summary is based on the UDRP decision in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. Even if the products sold by the Respondent were the Complainant’s genuine products, from inspection of the Respondent’s website, the Panel finds that the use of the Complainant’s trademark and logo on the website and the lack of any prominent and accurate disclaimer disclosing the lack of relationship with the Complainant would falsely suggest to Internet users, under the Oki Data principles (see above), that the website to which the disputed domain name resolves is owned by the Complainant or at least somehow affiliated to the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent’s false claim that “Iran Saravi is a specialized store and sales representative for CeraVe brand products in Iran”, on the website at the disputed domain name, further supports the Panel finding that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety) carries a risk of implied affiliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Based on the facts of this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore finds that paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied. C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith While paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires a demonstration that a domain name has either been registered or is being used in bad faith, the Complainant has argued that the Respondent has both registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that “for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: (i) circumstances indicating that [the respondent has] registered or has acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [the respondent has] engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) that [the respondent has] registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the complainant; or (iv) that by using the domain name, [the respondent has] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] website or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] website or location”.
page 6 Regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademark CERAVE in the cosmetics field is clearly established and the Panel finds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, especially because of the content of the Respondent’s website at the disputed domain name, on which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced, and goods bearing the Complainant’s trademark are purportedly offered for sale. The Panel notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business. The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to attract Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the geographical term “iran” and a hyphen, namely a reference to the Respondent’s country (increasing the likelihood of confusion as it may lead Internet users to believe that the disputed domain name would direct them to the official website of the Complainant intended for the Iranian market, or that it is endorsed by or in some way connected to the Complainant and its business), further supports a finding of bad faith. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Finally, since the MX records attached to the disputed domain name have been activated, noting the nature of the disputed domain name (incorporating the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety), the Panel deems that there is a risk that the disputed domain name could be used for phishing activities. The Panel finds that the Complainant has presented evidence to satisfy its burden of proof with respect to the issue of whether the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel therefore finds that 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 be transferred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: August 28, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy