Mederma.online

The timeline behind mederma.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION LABORATOIRE HRA PHARMA SAS v. Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc Case No. D2025-4544 1. The Parties The Complainant is LABORATOIRE HRA PHARMA SAS, France, represented by Omega Pharma Innovation & Development NV, Belgium. The Respondent is Domain Privacy, Domain Name Privacy Inc, Cyp rus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <mederma.online> is registered with Communigal Communications Ltd. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 9, 2025, 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. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 10, 2025, providing the additional registrant inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar. The Center verif ied that the Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Unif orm 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 f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 12, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was December 2, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s def ault on December 8, 2025. The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on December 12, 2025. 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 4. Factual Background The Complainant, a subsidiary of global pharmaceutical group Perrigo, is a French company that markets skin care products, in particular for scars and stretch marks. It is the proprietor of several registrations for its MEDERMA mark, including United States Trademark Registration No. 3233153 for MEDERMA (word mark), registered on April 24, 2007 f or goods in class 5, claiming a date of f irst use in 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on January 27, 2025. At the time of the Complaint and of this decision, it resolved to a website displaying pay-per-click (PPC) links related to skincare treatments. The record contains evidence that the disputed domain name is available f or sale f or USD 588. 5. 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 t hat the disputed domain name is identical to its MEDERMA trademark, The Respondent has no link with the Complainant, which has not authorized the Respondent to register the contested domain name. The contested domain name points to a parking page with links related to skin care products, which is the field of the Complainant’s MEDERMA products. Moreover, the disputed domain name is f or sale f or USD 588, which is more than out-of-pocket expenses. The Complainant requests transf er of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires the Complainant to make out all three of the f ollowing: (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 Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad f aith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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. page 3 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. 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. 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 of ten 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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. The Panel notes the composition of the disputed domain name, which consists of the Complainant’s MEDERMA mark. Theref ore, the Panel finds that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a high risk of implied affiliation to the Complainant that cannot constitute f air use. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights therein. Rather, the disputed domain name resolves to a website f eaturing PPC links related to the Complainant’s business. Under these circumstances, such use does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.9. The Panel notes that offering the disputed domain name for sale is not a use that would support a f inding of rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.2. 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. 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 f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name primarily to sell the disputed domain name for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent’s costs related to the disputed domain name (absent any evidence from the Respondent to the contrary). See WIPO Overview 3.0, 3.1.1. page 4 In particular, the Panel notes that the Complainant’s rights in its MEDERMA mark predate the registration of the disputed domain name by more than a decade. The disputed domain name ref lects the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The sum of USD 588 appears to be in excess of the costs related to registering the disputed domain name (absent any evidence f rom the Respondent to the contrary). The Panel f inds that the use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website featuring PPC links related to the Complainant’s business is an indication of bad f aith use of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.5. Finally, the Respondent has not provided any credible evidence-backed rationale f or registering the disputed domain name. Under the circumstances, the Panel does not believe that any such rationale exists. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. 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 <mederma.online> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa / Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: December 20, 2025

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