Larochee-posayy.com

The timeline behind larochee-posayy.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 La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique v. Mccloddencelayra Patrice Case No. D2026-2032 1. The Parties The Complainant is La Roche-Posay Laboratoire Pharmaceutique, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Mccloddencelayra Patrice, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <larochee-posayy.com> is registered with Metaregistrar BV (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 12, 2026. On May 12, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 12, 2026, 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 (Not disclosed) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 12, 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 on May 13, 2026. 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 May 15, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 4, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 5, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Alissia Shchichka as the sole panelist in this matter on June 10, 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 is a French company specialized in dermatological skincare and cosmetic products. Founded in 1975, the Complainant has developed and commercialized a wide range of skincare products formulated with La Roche-Posay thermal spring water. The Complainant operates worldwide. The Complainant has provided evidence demonstrating that it is the registered owner of numerous LA ROCHE-POSAY trademarks, including, but not limited to the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 787605, registered on July 12, 2002, for the word mark LA ROCHE-POSAY, in Classes 3 and 5; - International Trademark Registration No. 1533143, registered on April 24, 2020, for the word mark LA ROCHE-POSAY, in Classes 3 and 5; and - European Union Trademark Registration No. 018616412, registered on April 12, 2022, for the word mark LA ROCHE-POSAY, in Classes 3, 9, 35, and 41. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <laroche-posay.com>, which was registered on October 21, 1996, and is used in connection with the Complainant’s activities. The aforementioned trademark registrations and domain name predate the registration of the disputed domain name, which was registered on March 30, 2026. The disputed domain name is currently inactive. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website reproducing the Complainant’s trademark, logo and visuals, and offering cosmetic products at discounted prices. The Respondent, according to the disclosed WhoIs information for the disputed domain name, is located in United States of America. 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 confusingly similar to the Complainant’s LA ROCHE-POSAY trademarks, as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety, merely doubling the letters “e” and “y”. The Complainant argues that such minor misspellings constitute typosquatting and do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, since the trademark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The Complainant further notes that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded for the purposes of the first element, as it is a standard registration requirement and does not affect the assessment of confusing similarity. page 3 The Complainant also asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons: (i) the Complainant is not affiliated with the Respondent, and has never licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to register the disputed domain name; (ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent has not used, nor made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark, logo and visual identity, and offering cosmetic products under the name LA ROCHE-POSAY, thereby suggesting an affiliation with or authorization from the Complainant. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent was not accurately disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant; and (iv) the Complainant contends that there is no plausible good-faith use to which the Respondent could put the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. In particular the Complainant submits that: (i) given the worldwide reputation of the Complainant’s trademark and its use significantly predating the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights at the time of registration; (ii) the disputed domain name constitutes a deliberate case of typosquatting, which does not constitute a legitimate use of a trademark; (iii) the disputed domain name has not been put to any legitimate use but instead previously resolved to a commercial website prominently featuring the Complainant’s trademarks and purporting to sell the Complainant’s goods, which constitutes a case of impersonation and fraudulent passing off , thereby attempting to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, affiliation, or endorsement with the Complainant. 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 Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving: (i) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant, however, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if the Respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to submit a response as it considers appropriate. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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. 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 that 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. The Complainant has confirmed that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant, nor otherwise authorized or licensed to use the LA ROCHE-POSAY trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the trademark. The Respondent is also not known to be associated with the LA ROCHE- POSAY trademark, and there is no evidence showing that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. On the contrary, the Respondent is identified in the Registrar’s WhoIs database by the name which does not resemble the disputed domain name. The evidence submitted by the Complainant shows the disputed domain name previously resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark, and visual presentation, offering purported LA ROCHE- POSAY products at discounted prices. The Panel further notes that the website contained no disclaimer indicating the absence of any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Such use is not a bona fide offering. Noting also the composition of the disputed domain name, the Panel further finds that the Respondent’s domain name was registered to create confusion as to its association with the Complainant and its trademarks, in order to divert traffic, exploit the Complainant’s reputation for commercial gain. Such conduct can never be regarded as a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Policy. page 5 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. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. 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 observes that the Complainant’s LA ROCHE-POSAY trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, merely doubling the letters “e” and “y”. In these circumstances, and in light of the well-known character of the Complainant’s trademark, as well as the content of the website to which the disputed domain name resolved, the Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s business and trademark at the time of registration. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain name resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark, visual identity and offering purported LA ROCHE-POSAY products, without any disclaimer clarifying the lack of a relationship with the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, 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 trademarks regarding the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or the products offered on it. Pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, this constitutes evidence of the registration and use of a disputed domain name in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The fact that the disputed domain name no longer resolves to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith. Based on the available record, 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 <larochee-posayy.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Alissia Shchichka/ Alissia Shchichka Sole Panelist Date: June 17, 2026

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