Westmore · UDRP DecisionEsayparapharmacie.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <esayparapharmacie.com>, finding that the domain was a typosquatted version of the EASYPARAPHARMACIE mark, that Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and that the domain was registered and used in bad faith. The Panel relied on the easily overlooked reversal of two letters, the mark's long use and renown, and use of the domain for security-threat or potential-malware pop-ups and pay-per-click links.
The timeline behind esayparapharmacie.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 esayparapharmacie.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case is a straightforward example of transposition typosquatting. It also illustrates how a panel may combine the close imitation of an established mark, absence of any legitimate explanation, and harmful or monetized website behavior to find registration and use in bad faith.
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 Easyparapharmacie v. Domain Privacy, Above.com Domain Privacy Case No. D2021-3075 1. The Parties Complainant is Easyparapharmacie, France, represented by IP Twins, France. Respondent is Domain Privacy, Above.com Domain Privacy, Australia. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <esayparapharmacie.com> 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 September 17, 2021. On September 17, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 20, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 22, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 12, 2021. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on October 13, 2021. The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on October 20, 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. 4. Factual Background Complainant is Easyparapharmacie. Complainant is a French company founded in 2007 and specialized in the online sale and distribution of parapharmaceutical products, as well cosmetics and veterinary goods. Complainant owns several trademark registrations worldwide for the mark EASYPARAPHARMACIE. In particular, Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks registered well before the registration of the disputed domain name: - International trademark EASYPARAPHARMACIE, No. 1215294, registered on May 5, 2014, and designating goods and services in international classes 3, 5, 35 and 44; - French trademark EASYPARAPHARMACIE, No. 3536953, registered on November 9, 2007, renewed, and designating goods in international classes 3 and 5. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on August 13, 2021. According to the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolves to an active website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware onto the user’s device. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s EASYPARAPHARMACIE mark. The only difference between the disputed domain name and Complainant’s mark is that the disputed domain swaps the order of the first “a” and “s” in “easyparapharmacie”. This minor difference in spelling could be easily overlooked or considered a “typo” by Internet users. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has never been licensed or authorized or otherwise permitted to use Complainant’s mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant alleges that Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware onto the user’s device. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel finds this to be a clear case of “typosquatting” in which Respondent has registered a misspelling of a renowned mark without legitimate rights or interests and in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name is identical in spelling, meaning, and sound to Complainant’s well-established trademark, but for an easily-overlooked typographical variation, namely reversing the first “a” and “s”. It is well established that such minor typographical variations or misspellings do not avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a mark and a corresponding domain name. Prior UDRP panels have also found a difference of only one letter between a disputed domain name and a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See , e.g., Express Scripts, Inc. v. Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc. / Domaindeals, Domain Administrator , WIPO Case No. D2008-1302 (<expresscripts.com> omission of “s” constitutes typosquatting which is by definition evidence of a confusingly similar domain name); Electronic Arts Inc. v. John Zuccarini , WIPO Case No. D2003-0141 (<simscity.com> “the domain name differs from [SIMCITY] trademark in only one letter; this small difference establishes the confusingly similarity with [the complainant’s trademark]”). See also section 1.9 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Respondent is not known by Complainant’s mark. Complainant confirms that Respondent does not have license, permission, or authorization to use Complainant’s mark. There is no evidence demonstrating any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, coupled with Complainant’s contentions, are indicative that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Given the long use and renown of Complainant’s EASYPARAPHARMACIE marks, and the similarity between the mark and the disputed domain name, it is highly implausible that Respondent was not aware of the EASYPARAPHARMACIE mark at the time Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name. Such knowledge is sufficient to establish that the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent in bad faith. See Caesars World, Inc. v. Forum LLC , WIPO Case No. D2005-0517 (finding bad faith where Respondent registered the domain name <caesarspalacepoker.com> after it knew or should have known about Complainant’s trademarks). The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying pop-ups indicating a security threat and potentially downloaded malware, and pay-per-click links, is evidence of bad faith use as described under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 disputed domain name <esayparapharmacie.com> be transferred to Complainant. Michael A. Albert Sole Panelist Date: November 3, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around esayparapharmacie.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.