Westmore · UDRP DecisionKlarnapay.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <klarnapay.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KLARNA mark because it incorporated the mark in full with the descriptive term “pay.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the domain’s offering for sale and use as a parked page with links related to the Complainant’s business supported a finding that the Respondent intentionally targeted the mark in bad faith.
The timeline behind klarnapay.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 klarnapay.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates how a domain combining an entire trademark with a term closely connected to the trademark owner’s business can satisfy confusing similarity and reinforce an inference of intentional targeting. The combination of a related-term domain, a sale offering, business-related parking links, prior trademark rights, and an unrebutted record was decisive across the second and third elements.
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 Klarna Bank AB v. Yaoliming This Domain is for Sale at Sedo.com Case No. D2019-0864 1. The Parties The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Yaoliming This Domain is for Sale at Sedo.com of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <klarnapay.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 16, 2019. On April 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 17, 2019, 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 and contact information for the disputed domain name. 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, and the proceedings commenced on April 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2019. The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 2019. 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 is Klarna Bank AB, founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden, one of the Europe’s largest banks nowadays, providing payment solutions for 60 million consumers in 18 countries. Klarna offers direct payments, pay after delivery options and installment plans in one-click purchase experience that let consumers pay when and how they prefer. The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word mark KLARNA in several countries around the world, including the following International trademark registrations: -No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014; -No. 1182130, registered on August 1, 2013; and -No. 1066079, granted on December 21, 2010 (designating China). The disputed domain name was registered on October 10, 2018 and resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA and the term “pay”, that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is not known by the name “Klarna”. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has made no claims neither to have any relevant rights over the disputed domain name nor to make a legitimate, noncommercial use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant alleges that its registrations of KLARNA precede the registration of the disputed domain name and that it resolves to a parked page with related links to the KLARNA trademark, causing confusion to the public. The Complainant mentions that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not have the trademark KLARNA in mind while registering the disputed domain name and that the additional term “pay” was a convenient term to be associated to the disputed domain name. The Complainant argues that reproducing a famous trademark in a domain name to attract Internet users cannot be considered as fair use or use in good faith. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for KLARNA around the world, including the International trademark registrations No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014; No. 1182130 registered on August 1, 2013; and No. 1066079, registered on December 21, 2010 (the latter also designating China). The Complainant’s trademarks predate the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA in addition to the term “pay”. Indeed, the addition of the term “pay” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Such an expression might increase chances of leading Internet users into wrong association and/or confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark and its activities related to bank services. As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e. , the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark KLARNA. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, there is evidence in the complaint that the disputed domain name was registered with the intention of profit, since it is being offered for sale. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e ., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The trademark KLARNA is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and the already mentioned trademark protections owned by the Complainant predate the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA in its entirety with the addition of the term “pay” and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it. The Complainant’s KLARNA mark is known by the consumers and has a strong online visibility. Thus, the fact that the disputed domain name comprises such a mark associated with the expression “pay” is itself evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith, as it is very unlikely that the Respondent did not know the Complainant’s marks on the occasion of the registration of the disputed domain name. Taking also into account that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale and that it was used as a parked page with links related to the Complainant’s business, as per the evidence showed in the Complaint, this Panel finds under the circumstances that the Respondent has intentionally targeted the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e ., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used 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 <klarnapay.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Mario Soerensen Garcia Sole Panelist Date: May 30, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around klarnapay.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.