Westmore · UDRP DecisionColoplastonesolution.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <coloplastonesolution.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered COLOPLAST mark, found no evidence establishing rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent, and found bad-faith registration and use based particularly on the coined nature of COLOPLAST, the exact correspondence between the domain and the textual portion of the Complainant’s recent COLOPLAST ONESOLUTION trademark application, and the domain’s registration one week after that application was filed.
The timeline behind coloplastonesolution.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 coloplastonesolution.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates how an exact match to the textual portion of a newly filed trademark application, combined with a coined pre-existing mark and registration only one week after the filing, can provide powerful evidence of targeted registration. The Panel’s reasoning did not depend solely on the alleged sale offer; the timing, exact textual correspondence, and absence of a rebuttal independently drove the bad-faith analysis.
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 Coloplast A/S v. Goo Case No. D2017-2471 1. The Parties The Complainant is Coloplast A/S of Humlebaek, Denmark, represented internally. The Respondent is Goo of Seoul, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <coloplastonesolution.com> is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 14, 2017. On the same date, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 15, 2017, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant, providing the Respondent’s contact details, and indicating that the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean. On December 21, 2017, the Center notified the Parties in both English and Korean that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Korean. On December 22, 2017, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any request regarding the language of the proceeding. 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 the Respondent of the Complaint in both English and Korean, and the proceedings commenced on December 28, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 17, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 18, 2018. The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on February 2, 2018. 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. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Panel found it necessary to extend the due date for the decision to March 2, 2018, and the Parties were so notified. 4. Factual Background The Complainant, Coloplast A/S, is a Danish manufacturer of medical devices. The Complainant was founded in Denmark in 1957 and now has presence in 53 countries with more than 9,700 employees. The Complainant has international registrations for the COLOPLAST mark (International Registration Nos. 883011 and 929298), registered on May 26, 2005 and May 16, 2007, respectively, and filed a trademark application for COLOPLAST ONESOLUTION and device (Application No. 87610674) with the USPTO on September 15, 2017. The Respondent Goo appears to be a Korean individual who resides in the Republic of Korea. The disputed domain name was registered on September 22, 2017, and resolves to a webpage that states, “Coming Soon! coloplastonesolution.com”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the COLOPLAST trademark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant notes that it contacted the Respondent regarding the disputed domain name, and the Respondent offered to sell it for EUR 1,000. The Complainant contends that this is indicative of bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Language of the Proceeding Paragraph 11(a) of the Rules provides that the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement, unless otherwise agreed to by the parties, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement is Korean, and both Parties have had an opportunity to argue their position on this point. The Center issued a notice stating that it would preliminarily accept the Complaint filed in English, and that the Response would be accepted in either Korean or English. The Respondent subsequently chose not to submit a Response. Given the fact that the Complainant is based in Denmark and the Respondent is based in the Republic of Korea, English would appear to be the fairest neutral language for rendering this Decision. Besides, both Parties were given the opportunity to submit arguments in the language of their preference, but the Respondent neither raised an objection as to language nor submitted any arguments whatsoever in these proceedings. Moreover, the Respondent does not appear to have difficulty with the English language based on the email he sent to the Complainant. Under these circumstances, it appears that fairness has been maintained, and the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this Decision in English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has demonstrated with supporting evidence that it holds trademark registrations for COLOPLAST (which precede the registration of the disputed domain name). The disputed domain name entirely incorporates the Complainant’s mark and simply adds the additional portions “one” and “solution”, which are terms that are common and generally non-distinctive. Additionally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix “.com” can be disregarded for purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the first element. Based on the above, the Panel finds that the first element has been established. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests On the basis of the present record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required allegations to support a prima facie showing that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie basis has been established, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no Response to these assertions by the Complainant, and there is no evidence or allegation in the records that would warrant a finding in favor of the Respondent on this point. For the reasons provided above and below, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the second element has been established. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that there are more than sufficient reasons to find bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name in this case. First, “coloplast” appears to be a coined term, and the Respondent’s registration for a domain name with this exact term should on its own be viewed as more than mere coincidence. Not only that, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name a week after the Complainant filed a trademark application for COLOPLAST ONESOLUTION and device (Application No. 87610674) with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (which follow other prior trademark registrations in other jurisdictions). It is highly unlikely for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name without being aware of the Complainant and its new trademark filing. Rather, based on the timing of registration for the disputed domain name, and the fact that the disputed domain name consists exactly of the text portions of the Complainant’s application, it is more likely that the Respondent learned of the new filing and registered the disputed domain name with the intended purpose of selling it to the Complainant for a profit. For the reasons given above, the Panel finds that the third and final element has been sufficiently established. 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 <coloplastonesolution.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Ik-Hyun Seo Sole Panelist Date: March 4, 2018
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around coloplastonesolution.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.