The Complainant is L’Oréal of Paris, France, represented by Dreyfus & Associés, France.
The Respondent is Ye Genrong of Lishui, Zhejiang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 3, 2012. On January 3, 2012, the Center transmitted by email to January 4, 2012 a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 5, 2012, Dynadot, LLC 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 January 17, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 6, 2012. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 7, 2012.
The Center appointed Tuukka Airaksinen as the sole panelist in this matter on February 13, 2012. 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 L’Oréal is a cosmetics group based in France. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations around the world for the mark L’ORÉAL and marks including that mark, such as L’ORÉAL PARIS, which has been registered inter alia in China, the domicile of the Respondent, on April 17, 2008 under No 6665726.
The disputed domain name was registered on July 3, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant considers that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its registered and well-known trademarks. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a page containing commercial links, some of which are in the field of competing products.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s purpose when registering the disputed domain name was to make profits out of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. Hence the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
The Complainant refers to a previous WIPO case between the same Parties involving the disputed domain name (L'Oréal, Laboratoire Garnier et Compagnie, and Lancôme Parfums et Beauté et Compagnie v. Zhao Ke, Zeng Wei, Zhu Tao, Yang Yong, Ma Yun, Ye Genrong, Ye Li, ChinaDNS Inc.,DomainJet, Inc., and Hao Domains Services,WIPO Case No. D2011-1608), in which case the Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name was declined.
It is apparent from the previous decision that the rejection was due to procedural reasons and that the Complainant’s contentions were not materially examined at that time. The panel specifically declined to order transfer of the disputed domain name without prejudice to the Complainant’s right to file a new complaint.
This Panel accepts that the previous complaint is not prejudicial and that the present case shall therefore not be considered as a re-filed complaint. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant owns trademark rights inter alia to the Chinese trademark registration No 6665726 L’ORÉAL PARIS. The disputed domain name differs only by the omission of the apostrophe between the letters “l” and “o”, the accent on the letter “e” and the extension “.tv”.
These are minor differences caused by the limitations and requirements of the domain name system and do not alter the overall impression of the disputed domain name’s confusing similarity to the trademarks to which the Complainant has showed it owns exclusive rights.
This Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Next the Complainant needs to demonstrate that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Complainant has contended that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks in the disputed domain name. Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, namely having them resolve to a website offering goods of the Complainant’s competitors, may lead consumers to believe that the website is linked or operated by the Complainant.
None of these allegations have been rebutted by the Respondent and the Panel finds that the Complainant has made at least a prima facie case of the Respondent’s lack of rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Complainant makes references to previous WIPO UDRP decisions, in which the Complainant’s trademark L’ORÉAL has been accepted to be widely known around the world in general and in China in particular. The Complainant has also submitted some evidence showing the success of its L’ORÉAL PARIS product line in China.
This Panel is satisfied that the Complainant’s mark is a well-known trademark world-wide, including China, and that it consequently is not likely that the Respondent would have registered the disputed domain name without the knowledge of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks L’ORÉAL and L’ORÉAL PARIS.
Such knowledge has been considered to be evidence of bad faith by previous WIPO panels (see Caixa D’Estalvis i Pensions de Barcelona (“La Caixa”) v. Eric Adam,WIPO Case No. D2006-0464. See also Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Reuters Limited v. Global Net 2000, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2000-0441).
Further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith is that a simple trademark search at the time of registering the disputed domain name would have revealed the Complainant’s trademarks (see LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, A Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138; RRI Financial, Inc. v. Ray Chen, WIPO Case No. D2001-1242).
As regards use in bad faith, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a so-called pay-per-click (PPC) website, which includes commercial links to products competing with those of the Complainant. Such PPC websites have in several cases been considered as evidence of using the Complainant’s trademark for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark (see ALSTOM v. jerry jonn,WIPO Case No. D2010-2075).
Considering the above, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name 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 be transferred to the Complainant.
Tuukka Airaksinen
Sole Panelist
Dated: February 22, 2012
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy