Lr-health.beauty

The timeline behind lr-health.beauty

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH v. Viaceslav Nidelschii Case No. D2023-3757 1. The Parties The Complainant is LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH, Germany, represented by Jonas Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaf t mbH, Germany. The Respondent is Viaceslav Nidelschii, Ukraine. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <lr-health.beauty> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 8, 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 11, 2023, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which dif f ered f rom the named Respondent (Unkno wn) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on September 15, 2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amendment to the Complaint. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amendment to the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” o r “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 25, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was October 15, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on October 20, 2023. The Center appointed Edoardo Fano as the sole panelist in this matter on October 25, 2023. The Panel f inds 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. page 2 The Panel has not received any requests f rom the Complainant or the Respondent regarding f urther submissions, waivers or extensions of deadlines, and the Panel has not f ound it necessary to request any f urther inf ormation f rom the Parties. Having reviewed the communication records in the case file provided by the Center, the Panel finds that the Center has discharged its responsibility under the Rules, paragraph 2(a), “to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to [the] Respondent”. Theref ore, the Panel shall issue its Decision based upon the Complaint, the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules and without the benef it of a response f rom the Respondent. The language of the proceeding is English, being the language of the Registration Agreement, as per paragraph 11(a) of the Rules. 4. Further Procedural Considerations Under paragraph 10 of the Rules, the Panel is required to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a f air opportunity to present its case, and that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition. Although the Respondent’s mailing address is stated to be in Ukraine (though such f act is not possible to verif y), which is subject to an international conf lict at the date of this Decision which may impact case notif ication, it is appropriate for the Panel to consider, in accordance with its discretion under paragraph 10 of the Rules, whether the proceeding should continue. The Panel is of the view that it should. Further to the Rules, the Center transmitted written notice of the Complaint to the Respondent. While it is noted that the communications to the Respondent’s email addresses failed, the Panel notes that the courier was able to deliver the written notice to the Respondent, and that notice of the Complaint was also sent to the Respondent through the contact f orm f ound at the web site at the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the Complainant has specified in the Complaint that any challenge made by the Respondent to any decision to transf er or cancel the disputed domain name shall be ref erred to the jurisdiction of the courts at the location of the principal office of the concerned registrar being in the United States of America. The Panel moreover notes that it is clear the Complainant has been targeted and that this is not a coincidental domain name registration, as is f urther described herein. The Panel concludes that the Parties have been given a fair opportunity to present their case, and so that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition the Panel will proceed to a Decision accordingly. 5. Factual Background The Complainant is LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH, a German company operating in the f ield of high-quality health and beauty products, and owning several trademark registrations worldwide f or LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS, among which: - German Trademark Registration No. 2079005 for LR and design, registered on September 26, 1994; - German Trademark Registration No. 30644164 for LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS and design, registered on November 24, 2006; - International Trademark Registration No. 939691 for LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS and design, registered on January 15, 2007, also extended to Ukraine; page 3 - European Union Trademark Registration No. 013191218 f or LR and design, registered on May 18, 2021. The Complainant also operates on the Internet, its website being “www.lrworld.com”. The Complainant provided evidence in support of the above. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on March 5, 2023, and it resolves to a website in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced, consisting of a copy of an earlier version of the Complainant’s of f icial website. 6. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that disputed domain name is conf usingly similar to its trademarks LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS. Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, since it has not been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or to use its trademark within the disputed domain name, it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and it is not making either a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a website in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced, consisting of a copy of an earlier version of the Complainant’s of f icial website. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad f aith, since the Complainant’s trademarks LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS are well known in the f ield of high-quality health and beauty products. Theref ore, the Respondent targeted the Complainant’s trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and the Complainant contends that the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate the Complainant and attract, f or commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, af f iliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website, qualif ies as bad f aith reg istration and use. B. Respondent The Respondent has made no reply to the Complainant’s contentions and is in def ault. In ref erence to paragraphs 5(f) and 14 of the Rules, no exceptional circumstances explaining the def ault have been put f o rward o r are apparent f rom the record. A respondent is not obliged to participate in a proceeding under the Policy, but if it fails to do so, reasonable f acts asserted by a complainant may be taken as true, and appropriate inf erences, in accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, may be drawn. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 4.3. page 4 7. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements, which the Complainant must satisf y in order to succeed: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (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 f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (o r threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightf orward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Panel f inds the marks LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS are recognizable within the disputed domain name. While typically disregarded, the generic Top-Level Domain in this instance (“.beauty”) f orms part of one the relevant trademarks and thus may be considered f or purposes of the f irst element comparison. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , sections 1.7 and 1.11.1. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the f irst element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come f orward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent f ails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.1. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterfeit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing of f , or other types of f raud) can never conf er rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. Moreover, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied af f iliation as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. page 5 Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that f or the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular but without limitation, that if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad f aith. In the present case, regarding the registration in bad faith of the disputed domain name, the reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS in the field of high-quality health and beauty products is clearly established, and the Panel f inds that the Respondent must have known of the Complainant, and deliberately registered the disputed domain name in bad f aith, especially because the website at the disputed domain name, in which the Complainant’s trademark and logo are reproduced, is a copy of an earlier version of the Complainant’s of f icial website. The Panel f urther notes that the disputed domain name is also being used in bad faith since the Respondent is trying to attract Internet users to its website by creating likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the disputed domain name’s source, sponsorship, af f iliation or endorsement, an activity clearly detrimental to the Complainant’s business. Panels have held that the use of a domain name f or illegal activity (e.g., the sale of counterf eit goods or illegal pharmaceuticals, phishing, distributing malware, unauthorized account access/hacking, impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud) constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad f aith under the Policy. The above suggests to the Panel that the Respondent intentionally registered and is using the disputed domain name in order both to disrupt the Complainant’s business, and to attract Internet users to its website in accordance with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, the Panel considers that the nature of the inherently misleading disputed domain name, which includes the Complainant’s trademark LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS in its entirety, with the only exception of the terms “&” and “systems” that are missing, f urther supports a f inding of bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. Based on the available record, the Panel f inds the third element of the Policy has been established. 8. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name, <lr-health.beauty> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Edoardo Fano/ Edoardo Fano Sole Panelist Date: October 26, 2023

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.