Myphameucerin.com

The timeline behind myphameucerin.com

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 Beiersdorf AG v. Duong Cong Dong Case No. D2026-0218 1. The Parties The Complainant is Beiersdorf AG, Germany, internally represented. The Respondent is Duong Cong Dong, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <myphameucerin.com> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with P.A. Viet Nam Company Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 20, 2026. On January 20, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On January 21, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 30, 2026, 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 and amendment to the Complaint in English on January 30, 2026, and February 4, 2026, respectively. On January 30, 2026, the Center informed the parties in Vietnamese and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Vietnamese. On February 4, 2026, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint and amendment to 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Vietnamese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2026. The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter on March 11, 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. 4. Factual Background The Complainant was founded in 1882 and is today one of the world's leading companies in cosmetics and skincare. The Complainant is engaged in the manufacture and distribution of chemical and technical products, as well as general import and export activities in Germany and abroad. The Complainant owns many trademark registrations that consist of or contain the element EUCERIN (the “EUCERIN trademark”) in a variety of countries, including in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, comprising the International Trademark Registration No. 710661 registered on March 3, 1999, in Classes 3, 5; the International Trademark Registration No. 765927 registered on August 4, 2001, in Classes 3, 5; and the International Trademark Registrations No. 1370221 registered on January 12, 2017, in Classes 3, 5. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <eucerin.com> and <eucerin.vn> which maintains active status. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on July 28, 2018. As of the date of filing this Complaint and drafting this Decision, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an active website which presents itself in Vietnamese as a “retailer supplying authentic pharmaceutical Eucerin cosmetics from Germany in Ho Chi Minh City”. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that each of the elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows: (i) The Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to its EUCERIN trademark. The Complainant submits that the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the EUCERIN trademark in its entirety, merely adding the term “mypham”. The Complainant further argues that this additional term, which is descriptive of cosmetic products, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the dominant and recognizable element of the Disputed Domain Name remains the EUCERIN trademark. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name or in the EUCERIN trademark contained therein. The Complainant states that it has not authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the EUCERIN trademark in any manner, nor to register or use the Disputed Domain Name. page 3 The Complainant further submits that the Respondent has no affiliation or relationship with the Complainant, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is not associated with any legitimate business or activity of the Respondent, and that the Respondent has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. (iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without authorization and in full knowledge of the Complainant’s EUCERIN trademark. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has used the Disputed Domain Name to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s official websites as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such communications and products. With the said arguments, the Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the Disputed Domain Name is Vietnamese. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including the fact that (i) the Complainant has no knowledge of Vietnamese and the use of another language other than English would impose a burden of cost on the Complainant; (ii) the website under the Disputed Domain Name contains English words, including “Hotline”, “Review”, “Eucerin Sun Protection” suggesting that the Respondent is likely capable of understanding English; and (iii ) English is the primary language for international relations. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.5.1). Having considered all the matters above, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. page 4 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 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other term here, “mypham”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term, which is the unaccented form of the Vietnamese term “mỹ phẩm”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. In addition, the Panel determines that the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name is disregarded, as it is viewed as a technical necessity. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The Panel finds that 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 3.1, 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. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, including: “(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial page 5 gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, based on the evidence submitted by the Complainant, that the Respondent was not granted any license, permission, or authorization to register or use the EUCERIN trademark or the Disputed Domain Name. There is no indication that the Respondent owns any registered or unregistered trademark rights in any jurisdiction corresponding to the designation “EUCERIN” or to the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel determines that the Respondent has no trademark rights or other legitimate interests in the EUCERIN trademark. A reseller or distributor may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., (“Oki Data”), WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 including: - the Respondent must be offering the goods or services at issue; - the Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services (otherwise, there is the possibility that the Respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods or services); - the site itself must accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner; and - the Respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name. In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not meet these criteria. The evidence shows that the website associated with the Disputed Domain Name prominently displays the EUCERIN trademark and reproduces product images and descriptions from the Complainant’s official materials, while presenting itself as a source of EUCERIN products. At the same time, the website under the Disputed Domain Name does not include any clear or prominent disclaimer of relationship with the Complainant. On the contrary, the overall presentation of the website is such as to suggest an affiliation or authorization by the Complainant, which does not exist. In the Panel’s view, such use is likely to mislead Internet users and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Regarding paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds no evidence that the Respondent, whether as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, nor is there any indication that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it. The evidence indicates that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used with knowledge of the Complainant’s EUCERIN trademark and with the intention of capitalizing on the goodwill and reputation associated with that trademark. 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, including: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or page 6 (ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” In the present case, the Panel notes that the Complainant has put forth evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant's contentions and, therefore, did not refute the Complainant's contentions. The Panel has considered the Complainant’s assertions and evidence concerning the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s EUCERIN trademark has been registered and extensively used in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including Viet Nam, where the Respondent resides, and has acquired a significant recognition in the cosmetics and skincare sector. These trademark rights and their associated reputation clearly predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s EUCERIN trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “mypham”, being the unaccented form of the Vietnamese term “mỹ phẩm”, meaning “cosmetics” in English. This term is descriptive of the Complainant’s products and, in the Panel’s view, reinforces the association with the Complainant’s field of business. Given the distinctiveness of the EUCERIN trademark and its established use, the Panel finds it implausible that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. Rather, the Panel considers that the Respondent deliberately selected the Disputed Domain Name to create an association with the Complainant. The Panel further observes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website offering products under the EUCERIN trademark, and that the website prominently displays the Complainant’s trademark, logo, product images, and marketing materials without authorization. Such use is liable to mislead Internet users into believing that the website is operated by, affiliated with, or endorsed by the Complainant. In these circumstances, the Panel finds that Internet users seeking the Complainant’s EUCERIN products are likely to be diverted to the Respondent’s website and to assume a commercial connection with the Complainant. The Panel therefore concludes that, by using the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website and the products offered thereon. This constitutes evidence of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 7 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 <myphameucerin.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac/ Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac Sole Panelist Date: March 26, 2026

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