Westmore · UDRP DecisionClarins-skincare.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <clarins-skincare.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the CLARINS trademark because it incorporated the mark and added only the industry-descriptive terms “skin” and “care.” The Respondent did not rebut the Complainant’s prima facie case on rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established from the fame of the mark, the overall circumstances, and use of the Domain Name for sponsored links related to cosmetics and make-up products.
The timeline behind clarins-skincare.com
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-skincare.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that adding terminology directly descriptive of a trademark owner’s industry may reinforce rather than dispel confusing similarity. It also shows the evidentiary importance of screenshots connecting a disputed domain name to sponsored links in the complainant’s own commercial field, particularly where the respondent provides no rebuttal.
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. Robert Smith, Skincare Case No. D2014-0282 1. The Parties The Complainant is Clarins of Neuilly Sur Seine, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is Robert Smith, Skincare of Carlton, Nottingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <clarins-skincare.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Webfusion Ltd trading as 123-reg (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2014. On February 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 25, 2014, 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 February 27, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 19, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2014. The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Clarins, is a company duly organized under the laws of France. The Complainant is one of the major actors in the field of cosmetics and make-up goods. The Complainant has been doing business in France for more than 50 years where it is well-known, and is also well-established worldwide and owns many trademarks worldwide, among them the CLARINS trademark, registered in many countries as France and other European countries, Canada, China, and United Kingdom, copies of such registrations are attached in Annex 5 to the Complaint. The Complainant also has registered since 1997 the domain name <clarins.com> and also the domain name <clarins.co.uk>. Also, the name Clarins constitutes the registered company name of the Complainant. The Domain Name was registered on February 11, 2009. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant is the owner of the CLARINS trademark in many countries of the world including France, the country where the Complainant’s company is registered. The Complainant’s trademark is registered in several classes such as 3, 5 and 10, all related to cosmetics, pharmaceutical and related goods. The Complainant also has registered domain names with the word “Clarins” such as <clarins.com> and <clarins.co.uk>, and in addition Clarins is also the name of the company of the Complainant. The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLARINS trademark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of the CLARINS trademark in many countries of the world including France, the country where the Complainant’s company is registered, and also has registered domain names including the word “Clarins” as expressed above. The Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> includes the CLARINS trademark that belongs to and is registered in many countries of the world in the name of the Complainant. The words “skin” and “care” do not add any meaningful element with respect to the registered trademark of the Complainant to be able to create a difference. On the contrary the words “skin” and “care” are descriptive words of the industry of cosmetics and beauty services, which are the business areas of the Complainant, so those descriptive words increase the possibility of identifying and confusing the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trademark. In summary the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark owned by the Complainant, so the Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has shown ownership of the CLARINS trademark, registration of domain names including such mark and identification by the name Clarins, which is also the name of the company of the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, the allegations made by the Complainant in the Complaint constitute prima face evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent did not file any response and did not seek to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant has provided screen prints of the website under its domain name <clarins.co.uk> showing use in the cosmetic and beauty industry. The Complainant has also provided screen prints of the website associated to the Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> which shows that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to browse through sponsored links related to the Complainant’s field of activity, i.e. cosmetics and make-up products. Given the fame of the Complainant’s trademark and the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and finds therefore that the Complainant satisfied the third element of the Policy. 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 Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Gabriela Paiva Hantke Sole Panelist Date: April 7, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around clarins-skincare.com
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.