Kiehlsvietnam.online

The timeline behind kiehlsvietnam.online

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 AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION L’ Oréal v. Nguyen Phu Tuan, Phu Tuan Case No. D2024-0658 1. The Parties The Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & Associés, France. The Respondent is Nguyen Phu Tuan, Phu Tuan, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kiehlsvietnam.online> is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount- Domain.com and Onamae.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 13, 2024. On February 13, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 14, 2024, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC), and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 15, 2024 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 19, 2024. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 February 21, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 12, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 18, 2024. page 2 The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on March 21, 2024. 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 a leading French industrial group in the field of cosmetics and beauty that employs around 86.000 employees in 150 countries. The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations for KIEHL’S in different jurisdiction. As such: International registration for KIEHL’S with No. 752476, registered on January 18, 2001. European Intellectual Property Office for KIEHL’S with No. 001505767, registered on March 23, 2001. The mark KIEHL’S is to be considered well-known for UDRP purposes. The Complainant is the owner of <kiehls.com> registered on April 28, 1998 and <kiehls.com.vn> registered on October 31, 2013. The Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to a website where the Complainant’s trademark and visual are displayed without authorization. The website also impersonated the Complainant by using (in Vietnamese language) the copyright sign © for L'OREALS VIETNAM COMPANY LIMITED of the Complainant’s official website “www.kiehls.com.vn”. The Complainant sent a take down notice to the hosting company, asserting its trademark rights and requesting the deactivation of the infringing website, on January 17, 2024. Although the Complainant did not receive any answer, currently the disputed domain name is inactive. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is virtually identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s prior trademarks KIEHL'S. The mere deletion of the apostrophe after the letter “l” does not significantly affect the appearance of the said disputed domain name and is probably linked to technical constraints in registering a domain name. Besides, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent registration and use is based on KIEHL’S notoriety and attractiveness to divert internet traffic to its website. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel that: page 3 (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 was registered and is being used in bad faith. There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules to prevent the Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to file a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences there from as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “vietnam”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Neither does the deletion of the apostrophe after the letter “l”. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The Panel finds the first 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. Although 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 difficult 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 forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails 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 available 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 forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.13.1. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for 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 faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy applies since the evidence show how the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the affiliation or endorsement of either the Respondent or its website. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 3.2.1. Indeed, the Panel looks at the WIPO Overview 3.0 section 3.1.1 for circumstances indicating bad faith registration, including how “...the nature of the domain name and the distinctiveness of trademark at issue, among other factors, are relevant to this inquiry”, and concludes that the disputed domain name falls within what is deemed to be considered bad faith registration. UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity here, claimed impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad faith. 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 faith under the Policy. UDRP panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <kiehlsvietnam.online> be transferred to the Complainant. /Manuel Moreno-Torres/ Manuel Moreno-Torres Sole Panelist Date: April 4, 2024

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