Westmore · UDRP DecisionClarins.mobi
The Panel ordered transfer of <clarins.mobi>. It found the domain identical to the Complainant’s registered CLARINS mark, found no rights or legitimate interests in the Respondent’s use of the domain for links to competing products and its offer for sale, and found bad-faith registration and use based on exploitation of the well-known mark, diversion to competing offerings, and an EUR 1,000 sale proposal exceeding registration costs.
The timeline behind clarins.mobi
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind clarins.mobi — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward exact-match domain dispute in which several mutually reinforcing facts established cybersquatting: a well-known pre-existing mark, commercial links to competing products, a public sale notice, a direct sale proposal to the trademark owner, and the absence of any rebuttal or evidence of legitimate use.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Clarins v. Yi Liu Case No. D2013-2170 1. The Parties The Complainant is Clarins of Neuilly sur Seine, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is Yi Liu of Oslo, Norway. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <clarins.mobi> 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 December 13, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2013, 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 January 6, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 26, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2014. On January 28, 2014, the Center received a Supplemental Filing from the Complainant. The Center acknowledged receipt of the Supplemental Filing on January 28, 2014. The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2014. 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. The Panel has decided to accept the Supplemental Filing, using its discretion under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word mark CLARINS for different goods and services among others in classes 3 and 44. The priority dates of these registrations date back to January 7, 1991 (French registration no. 1637194), October 10, 2006 (Community trademark registration no. 5394283), August 25, 1962 (Norwegian registration no. 87350), January 3, 2004 (Canadian registration no. TMA645123) and February 1, 1994 (Chinese registration also covering Chinese characters no. 796200). The disputed domain name <clarins.mobi> was created on December 11, 2010. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant states that it is one of the major actors in the field of cosmetics, make-up and perfumery goods and has been doing business in France for more than 50 years and is well-known worldwide. Furthermore the Complainant contends that the name “Clarins” constitutes its registered company name and the domain name <clarins.com > registered since March 16, 1997, is being used internationally. The Complainant furthermore states that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website enabling Internet users to browse through sponsored links in the French language related to products certain of which are competing with the products of the Complainant, and that the Respondent is exploiting the Complainant’s trademark in order to gain “click-through” commissions from the diversion of Internet users. According to the Complainant, the Respondent clearly misleads the consumers and diverts them from the real and official Complainant’s website “www.clarins.com” in order to create a commercial gain for himself. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to the above-cited trademarks, company name and domain names consisting in whole or in part of the word “clarins”. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this context the Complainant draws attention to the sentence appearing at the bottom of the website operated under the disputed domain name stating “The domain name clarins.mobi is offered for sale by its owner.” Finally, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, after having been notified of the Complaint, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant’s representative on January 17, 2014, asking whether the Complainant would be interested to buy the disputed domain name for an amount of EUR 1,000. This email has been forwarded by the Complainant to the Center in the above-mentioned Supplemental Filing. 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s contentions are justified and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark CLARINS based on different trademark registrations in the world. The disputed domain name is identical to this trademark. In making the comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix is usually disregarded. Since the trademark and the disputed domain name are identical, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. First of all, the Respondent makes a commercial use of the disputed domain name by offering links, probably on a click through commission, to websites where products are being offered that compete with those for which the trademark CLARINS is used. Secondly, the disputed domain name is registered and used after the trademark CLARINS became well-known. Thirdly, the disputed domain name is offered for sale on the website operated by the Respondent. The Respondent did not present any allegations or evidence of rights or legitimate interests he might have in the disputed domain name. In view of the aforementioned, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel recalls that the trademark CLARINS is a well-known trademark and is used and registered before the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to go to websites with competing products. The Respondent is thus exploiting the repute of the trademark CLARINS. This clearly shows the bad faith intention of the Respondent in registering and using this trademark in the disputed domain name. The bad faith intention can also be deduced from the fact that the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale on his website and also offered it for sale to the Complainant for a price exceeding the out-of-pocket registration costs directly related to the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) to be met. 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 <clarins.mobi> be transferred to the Complainant. Charles Gielen Sole Panelist Date: January 31, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around clarins.mobi
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.