WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

L’Oréal v. Emir Kurtovic, Agencija Raptor

Case No. D2020-0806

1. The Parties

Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

Respondent is Emir Kurtovic, Agencija Raptor, Serbia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <loreal.company> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 6, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 17, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 7, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 14, 2020.

The Center appointed Stephanie G. Hartung as the sole panelist in this matter on May 26, 2020. 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

Complainant is a company organized under the laws of France that is active in the cosmetics and beauty industry. Complainant has evidenced to be the registered owner of the following International (IR) trademarks relating to its company name and brand “L’Oréal” which enjoy protection, inter alia, for the territory of Serbia:

- Word/device mark L’ORÉAL, registration number: IR 184970, registration date: May 23, 1955, status: active;

- Word/device mark L’ORÉAL, registration number: IR 230114, registration date: March 28, 1960, status: active.

Moreover, Complainant has evidenced to own, inter alia, the domain name <loreal.com> which was registered on October 24, 1997, and which resolves to Complainant’s main website at “www.loreal.com” promoting Complainant’s business and related cosmetics and beauty products.

Respondent, according to the WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is residing in Serbia and registered the disputed domain name on July 31, 2019. Complainant has documented that, at some point before the filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website at “www.loreal.company” displaying various media articles from different websites in several languages, such as Le Monde or France Télévisions for its French part; by the time of the rendering of this decision, however, the website under the disputed domain name appears to be sort of a “parked” page which provides, inter alia, for a hyperlink to Respondent’s further own website at “www.rapttor.com” promoting Respondent’s services in relation to software development and Internet marketing.

On January 9, 2020, Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to Respondent followed by several reminders requesting to transfer the disputed domain name, to which Respondent apparently did not respond.

Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends to be the leading cosmetics group worldwide with a portfolio of 36 brands, 86,000 employees and presences in 150 countries; Complainant and its L’ORÉAL trademark enjoy a worldwide reputation and many previous UDRP panels have considered the L’ORÉAL trademark to be well known or even famous.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its L’ORÉAL trademark as it incorporates the latter in its entirety and the minor typographic differences such as the lack of an apostrophe are inadequate to avoid the finding of confusing similarity; moreover, the extension “.company” as a standard registration requirement should not be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. Moreover, Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since (1) Respondent is neither affiliated with Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized to use and register Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark or to seek registration of any related domain name, (2) the registration of Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark precedes the registration of the disputed domain name for years, (3) Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the disputed domain name resolves to a website containing various media articles from different websites such as Le Monde or France Télévisions for its French part, which may not be considered as use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Finally, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith since (1) given, e.g., Complainant’s recognition worldwide as well as the composition of the disputed domain name which entirely reproduces Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark, it is implausible that Respondent was unaware of Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, and (2) the resolution of the disputed domain name to a website containing various media articles from different websites, such as Le Monde or France Télévisions for its French part, will likely lead to confusion among Internet users as to Complainant’s sponsorship or affiliation with the resulting website and it is not possible to conceive a plausible circumstance in which Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name without taking unfair advantage of Complainant’s rights.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, Complainant carries the burden of proving:

(i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) that 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 is being used in bad faith.

Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute solely based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <loreal.company> is confusingly similar to the L’ORÉAL trademark in which Complainant has rights.

The disputed domain name incorporates the L’ORÉAL trademark in its entirety with minor omissions such as the apostrophe. Numerous UDRP panels have recognized that incorporating a trademark in its entirety can be sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name is at least confusingly similar to a registered trademark (see, e.g., PepsiCo, Inc. v. PEPSI, SRL (a/k/a P.E.P.S.I.) and EMS Computer Industry (a/k/a EMS), WIPO Case No. D2003-0696). Moreover, it has been held in many UDRP decisions and has become a consensus view among UDRP panels (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.11) that the applicable Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name is generally viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element test, though the meaning of such TLD may be relevant to a panel assessment of the second or third element of the URDP. Accordingly, the existence of the generic TLD “.company” does not dispel the finding of identity arising from the entire incorporation of Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, Complainant has established the first element under the Policy set forth by paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is further convinced on the basis of Complainant’s undisputed contentions that Respondent has not made use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor has Respondent been commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor can it be found that Respondent has made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof without intent for commercial gain.

Respondent has not been authorized to use Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark, either as a domain name or in any other way. Also, there is no reason to believe that Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the disputed domain name and Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “L’Oréal” or any variation thereof on its own. Finally, Respondent obviously has neither used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair purpose. On the contrary, the disputed domain name resolves to Respondent’s website at “www.loreal.company” which, by the time of the rendering of this decision, appears to be sort of a parked page which provides, inter alia, for a hyperlink redirecting Internet users to Respondent’s further own website at “www.rapttor.com” promoting Respondent’s own services in relation to software development and Internet marketing. UDRP panels agree that using a domain name to host a parked website does not present a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s trademark or otherwise mislead Internet users (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9).

Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Now, the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with appropriate evidence demonstrating the contrary (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1). Given that Respondent has defaulted, Respondent has not met that burden.

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has also satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) and, thus, the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel finally holds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

It is undisputed between the Parties that Complainant and its L’ORÉAL trademark enjoy considerable reputation throughout the world and given the concrete composition of the disputed domain name <loreal.company> it is more likely than not that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant and its L’ORÉAL trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, resolving the disputed domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark, to a sort of parked website, which provides, inter alia, for a hyperlink redirecting Internet users to Respondent’s further own website at “www.rapttor.com” promoting Respondent’s own services in relation to software development and Internet marketing, is a clear indication that Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its own websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s L’ORÉAL trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites. Such circumstances are evidence of registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

In connection with this finding, it not only carries weight in the eyes of the Panel that Respondent apparently kept silent on all of Complainant’s pre-procedural correspondence of January 2020, but also that Respondent provided false or incomplete contact information in the WhoIs register for the disputed domain name since, according to the email correspondence between the Center and the postal courier DHL, the Written Notice on the Notification of Complaint dated April 17, 2020, could not be delivered. All of these facts taken together throw a light on Respondent’s behavior, which strongly supports the Panel’s bad faith finding.

Therefore, Complainant has also satisfied the third element under the Policy as set forth by paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 <loreal.company> be transferred to Complainant.

Stephanie G. Hartung
Sole Panelist
Date: June 8, 2020