Westmore · UDRP DecisionLabosvr.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <labosvr.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s SVR trademark, particularly because “labo” describes the Complainant’s laboratory-related business and the Complainant was commonly known as “Labo SVR.” The Respondent presented no evidence of rights or legitimate interests, while the domain carried a high risk of implied affiliation and hosted PPC links capitalizing on the Complainant’s goodwill. Bad faith was established from the domain’s close correspondence to the Complainant’s identity and domains, sponsored links relating to skin care and cosmetics, and its listing for sale for USD 45,000.
The timeline behind labosvr.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates how a domain may be confusingly similar even where only part of the string is a registered mark. The Panel considered the complainant’s common name, descriptive business terminology, and earlier domain portfolio together. The combination of a hyphen-omission domain, commercially relevant PPC links, and a high sale price was decisive across the rights-or-legitimate-interests and bad-faith analyses.
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 Laboratoires SVR v. LaboSVR Inc Case No. D2021-1291 1. The Parties The Complainant is Laboratoires SVR, France, represented by Ebrand Services, France. The Respondent is LaboSVR Inc, Republic of Korea. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <labosvr.com> is registered with Megazone Corp., dba HOSTING.KR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 27, 2021. On April 27, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 30, 2021, the Center sent a reminder request to the Registrar. On May 3, 2021, 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. On May 3, 2021, 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 May 3, 2021, the Complainant requested for English to be the language of the proceeding. On May 6, 2021, the Respondent requested for Korean to be 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 May 10, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 30, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any formal response. On June 3, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it would proceed to Panel Appointment. The Center appointed Ik-Hyun Seo as the sole panelist in this matter on July 1, 2021. 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. Based on the deadline set forth in paragraph 15 of the Rules, a decision was to be issued by the Panel by July 15, 2021. Due to unforeseen circumstances, the Panel found it necessary to extend the due date for the decision to July 29, 2021, and the Parties were so notified. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a French dermo-cosmetic company established in 1962. It has offices in eight countries and 377 employees worldwide. Its products are sold in over 35 countries including in the Republic of Korea, and it has a turnover of around EUR 60 million. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademarks including the International trademark “SVR” No 1148914, registered in 2012 in classes 3 and 5. The Complainant also has a wide domain name portfolio including their main domain name: <labo-svr.com> registered in 1998. The Respondent appears to be located in the Republic of Korea. The disputed domain name was registered on February 19, 2018, and resolves to a webpage displaying Pay-Per-Click (“PPC”) links. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that “labo” is an abbreviation of “laboratoires” which means “laboratories” in French, that it is commonly known as “Labo SVR” which is identical to the disputed domain name, and that it has trademark registrations for SVR and SVR-based marks around the world including in the Republic of Korea. The Complaint also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and confirms that it has not authorized or licensed rights to the Respondent in any respect. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The Complainant explains that the Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 45,000 which is well in excess of the Respondent’s out of pocket costs related to the disputed domain name and shows that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant. The Complainant also asserts that the disputed domain name is linked to a webpage with links to products of the Complainant’s competitors which is likely to cause confusion as to the source of the goods, and shows the Respondent’s intent to benefit commercially from the disputed domain name. 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 in both Korean and English stating that it would accept the Complaint filed in English, and that the Response would be accepted in either Korean or English. Although the Respondent requested the proceedings to be in Korean, the Respondent subsequently chose to not file a Response. Given the fact that the Complainant is based in France 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, and the language in which to render the decision is reserved for the Panel. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds it proper and fair to render this decision in English. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant owns trademark registrations for SVR and SVR family of marks dating back to 2012, and the second half of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s SVR trademark. Although the Complainant does not own trademark registrations for the “labo” portion of the disputed domain name, it has demonstrated with sufficient evidence that it is commonly known as “Labo SVR” and that it owns domain names composed of these two terms in the exact same order as in the disputed domain name, such as <labosvr.be>, <labo-svr.com>, and <labo-svr.it>, the registrations of which all predate that of the disputed domain name. Further, “labo” is an abbreviation of “laboratoires” meaning “laboratories” which could be construed as a descriptive term covering the business of the Complainant. Given the above circumstances, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. For the reasons mentioned 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 production of demonstrating evidence of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, the Respondent in this case has chosen to file no substantive 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. As noted above, the disputed domain name incorporates the abbreviation “labo” for “laboratoires/laboratories”, which can be considered descriptive of the Complainant’s business area. Coupled with the construction of the Complainant’s domain names <labo-svr.com>, et al. , the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation. Finally, the use of a domain name to host PPC links that capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark, as in the present case, does not constitute a bona fide offering. For the reasons provided above, 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 in this case. First, the disputed domain name corresponds exactly to the name by which the Complainant is commonly known, “Labo SVR” which is also nearly the same as its main domain name under the “.com” extension, but excluding the hyphen. The Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name consisting of both the terms “Labo” and “SVR” in that exact order cannot be viewed as mere coincidence, especially when considering the domain names used by the Complainant mentioned above. Further, the Respondent linked the disputed domain name with a webpage which shows sponsored links to websites advertising skin care and cosmetic products which are the exact goods for which the Complainant is known. By doing so, the Respondent is financially benefiting from Internet users that reach the disputed domain name by mistake whilst seeking the Complainant. Lastly, the Respondent listed the disputed domain name for sale for USD 45,000. This amount is, without the benefit of any explanation from the Respondent, in excess of the out of pocket costs the Respondent may have reasonably incurred in registering and maintaining the disputed domain name. Not only that, the high price of the disputed domain name which corresponds to the Complainant’s identity strongly suggests that the Respondent knew of the Complainant and registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant or its competitors. 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, <labosvr.com>, be transferred to the Complainant. Ik-Hyun Seo Sole Panelist Date: July 29, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around labosvr.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.