Molnlycke.store

The timeline behind molnlycke.store

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 Mölnlycke Health Care AB v. Qingqing Yu Case No. D2025-5331 1. The Parties The Complainant is Mölnlycke Health Care AB, Sweden, represented by Abion AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Qingqing Yu, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <molnlycke.store> 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 December 19, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 22, 2025, 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 (Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 23, 2025, 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 December 26, 2025. 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 December 29, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 18, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 19, 2026. The Center appointed Christos A. Theodoulou as the sole panelist in this matter on January 22, 2026. 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant Mӧlnlycke Health Care AB is a limited liability company registered under the laws of Sweden. It is a world-leading medical solutions company, specializing in, inter alia, wound care and surgical procedures. The company was founded in 1849 in Sweden, now it is a leading medtech company employing round 8,600 people. Its products and solutions are used daily by hospitals, healthcare providers and patients in over 100 countries around the world, always according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant. The Complainant is the owner of multiple trademark registrations for MOLNLYCKE and MӦLNLYCKE: - Swedish trademark registration MOLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 280233 on June 22, 1961. - Australian trademark registration MOLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 1316246 on June 22, 1971. - European Union trademark registration MӦLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 005357082 on September 15, 1999. - International trademark registration MӦLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 1760848 on July 3, 2023. - International trademark registration MӦLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 1230528 on June 18, 2014. - International trademark registration MӦLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 535845A on March 8, 1989. - United States of America trademark registration MӦLNLYCKE (word) registered under no. 4957769 on May 17, 2016. The disputed domain name <molnlycke.store> was created on November 13, 2025, that is after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website. The Complainant, according to his uncontested allegations, owns numerous domain names comprising its trademark MOLNLYCKE including but not limited to <molnlycke.com> (created on September 22, 1996, <molnlycke.shop> (created on March 27, 2025), <molnlycke.global> (created on February 4, 2019), <molnlycke.kids> (created on November 29, 2022) and <molnlycke.net> (created on January 11, 2001). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Co mp lainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer o f the d isp uted domain name. Notably, the Co mp lainant co ntends that the d isp uted domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trad emarks MOLNLYCKE and MӦLNLYCKE in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks any rights o r legitimate interests in respect of the disputed d omain name, and that the Respondent reg istered the d isp uted domain name after the Co mplainant reg istered its trademarks and has reg istered and used the disputed domain name in b ad faith. Mo reo ver, the Co mplainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or leg itimate interests in the d isp uted domain name, that the Respondent has no relation to the Co mplainant in any way. The Co mplainant further alle g es that the Respond ent was neither licensed no r autho rized to make any use o f the Co mp lainant’s trad emark MOLNLYCKE. The Complainant asserts that, the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant’s trademarks were registered and used by the Complainant long before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The Panel shall now proceed to the analysis of the evidence in this case and shall decide if the Complainant has satisfied the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accep ted that the first element functio ns p rimarily as a standing req uirement. The stand ing (o r thresho ld) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Co mp lainant’s trademark and the d isp uted domain name. WIPO Overview o f WIPO Panel Views o n Selected UDRP Questio ns, Third Ed itio n, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), sectio n 1.7. The Complainant has sho wn rig hts in resp ect o f MOLNLYCKE and MӦLNLYCKE trademarks f o r the p urposes o f the Po licy. WIPO Overview 3.0, sectio n 1.2.1. The entirety of the MOLNLYCKE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accord ing ly, the d isp uted domain name is identical to the Co mp lainant’s trad emark fo r the p urposes o f the Po licy. WIPO Overv iew 3.0, sectio n 1.7. The Panel fin ds that the first element o f the Po lic y has b een estab lis hed . 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. In particular and based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; and that the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Respondent did not present evidence of any license or permission by the Complainant, with whom there seems to exist no relationship whatsoever. page 4 In addition, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s distinctive trademark in its entirety, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. Further, the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent and twice tried to contact him but received no response, according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant. As a conclusion on this point, the Panel finds that 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 the Respondent’s disputed domain name was created on November 13, 2025, whereas the Complainant’s trademarks had already been registered. From the evidence at hand, the Panel finds that the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name, must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks. Therefore, the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad faith (See, BellSouth Intelle ctual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No. D2006-0007, Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No. D2011-2209). Further, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s MOLNLYCKE trademark and this, according to previous UDRP cases, evidences bad faith registration and use (See Charles Jourdan Holding AG v. AAIM, WIPO Case No. D2000-0403, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.) It was found that the disputed domain name was passively held. According to previous panels “the non- use of a domain would not prevent a finding of bad faith” (See Mӧlnlycke Health Care AB v. Jawd Khan, WIPO Case No. D2024-2375, WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3). 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 passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Further, according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant, it sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent, to which the Respondent did not answer to prove possible good faith. At the time of filing the Complaint, according to the uncontested allegations of the Complainant, the disputed domain name still resolved to an inactive page. There is, therefore, no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the disputed domain name, as previous panels held (see British Airways Plc v. David Moor, WIPO Case No. D2006-1224). As a consequence of the above, 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 <molnlycke.store> be transferred to the Complainant. /Christos A. Theodoulou/ Christos A. Theodoulou Sole Panelist Date: January 27, 2026

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