Ceraveshop.live

The timeline behind ceraveshop.live

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. flameb earer Case No. D2026-3488 1. The Parties The Complainant is L’Oréal, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is flameb earer, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ceraveshop.live> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 6, 2026. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 7, 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 (Dynadot Privacy Service, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 7, 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 August 11, 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 August 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 3, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 4, 2026. The Center appointed Manuel Wegrostek as the sole panelist in this matter on September 8, 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 is a French industrial group specialising in cosmetics and beauty. Founded in 1909 by a French chemist, the Complainant is today one of the world’s largest groups in the cosmetics business. It has a portfolio of approximately 36 brands, employs nearly 86,000 people, and is present in around 150 countries. The Complainant acquired the skincare brand CeraVe, which was founded in 2005 and offers a range of advanced skincare products, specifically cleansers, moisturizers, sunscreens, healing ointments and a dedicated baby line. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for CERAVE (the “CERAVE Trademark”), including: - United States Trademark Registration No. 3234519, registered on April 24, 2007; - European Union Trademark Registration No. 017183427, registered on January 8, 2018; and. - European Union Trademark Registration No. 016162752, registered on June 21, 2017. The Complainant is also the owner of several domain names including the CERAVE Trademark, such as <cerave.com>, registered on November 18, 2004. The disputed domain name was registered on July 2, 2026. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website, but instead displays a default Shopify placeholder page stating that the store is currently unavailable. The Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website styled as an online shop under the heading “CeraVe Store”, prominently displaying the CERAVE Trademark in the page title, in the site header, and on product images, and offering for sale purported CERAVE products. The website did not disclose the absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. On July 15, 2026, the Complainant notified the Registrar and the hosting provider, requesting that the disputed domain name be blocked and the associated website deactivated, but received no substantive response beyond automated acknowledgements, despite several reminders. 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. On the first element of the Policy, the Complainant claims that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the CERAVE Trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates the CERAVE Trademark in its entirety, followed only by the descriptive term “shop”. This additional term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. On the contrary, it reinforces the misleading impression that the disputed domain name is operated, authorized or endorsed by the Complainant, or that it corresponds to an official online store offering the Complainant’s CERAVE products. Furthermore, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live” is irrelevant for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under the first element of the Policy, as it is merely a technical requirement of registration. On the second element of the Policy, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. The registration of the CERAVE Trademark preceded the registration of the disputed domain name for years. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name or the name “CERAVE”. In the present case, the disputed domain name resolves to a website creating a clear false affiliation with the Complainant. It prominently page 3 displays the CERAVE Trademark and official logo, offers alleged CERAVE products for sale, and uses the term “shop” in the disputed domain name, thereby suggesting that the website is operated, authorized, or endorsed by the Complainant. Such use does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, it shows an intent to misleadingly divert Internet users for commercial gain by creating confusion with the Complainant, its trademark, and its official distribution channels. Accordingly, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to imitate an official CERAVE online store cannot provide the Respondent with any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. On the third element of the Policy, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name. The Complainant is well-known throughout the world. Considering the composition of the disputed domain name, which entirely reproduces the CERAVE Trademark, which is a highly distinctive mark, with the addition of the generic term “shop”, it is impossible that the Respondent did not have the CERAVE Trademark and company name in mind while registering the disputed domain name. Further, the CERAVE Trademark registrations predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A quick search for “CERAVE” would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of Complainant and the CERAVE Trademark. Further, the use of the disputed domain demonstrates the Respondent’s intention to take unfair advantage of the reputation of the CERAVE Trademark for commercial gain, by attracting Internet users to the website through confusion as to its source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “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”. The Complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the Complaint with respect to the disputed domain name, namely that: (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 has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 applicable gTLD in a domain name (e.g., “.live”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. The disputed domain name contains the CERAVE Trademark in its entirety, with the only difference being the addition of the term “shop”. The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, page 4 meaningless, or otherwise), in this case the term “shop”, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. 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. Panels have categorically held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the CERAVE Trademark. The Panel finds that there are no indications that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or otherwise has any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Further, the disputed domain name was not used for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website styled as an online shop under the heading “CeraVe Store”, prominently displaying the CERAVE Trademark and offering for sale purported CERAVE products. The website did not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. 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 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. Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar (particularly domain names comprising typos or incorporating the mark plus a descriptive term) to a well-known trademark, and particularly in the case of coined or fanciful marks, can by itself create a presumption of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. Panels also have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (here, impersonation) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent and is manifestly considered evidence of bad faith. Moreover, panels have found the following types of evidence to support a finding that a respondent has registered a domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a page 5 likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark: (i) actual confusion; (ii) seeking to cause confusion (including by technical means beyond the domain name itself) for the respondent’s commercial benefit, even if unsuccessful; (iii) the lack of a respondent’s own rights to or legitimate interests in a domain name; (iv) redirecting the domain name to a different respondent-owned website, even where such website contains a disclaimer; (v) redirecting the domain name to or mimicking the complainant’s (or a competitor’s) website; and (vi) absence of any conceivable good faith use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. In the present case, the disputed domain name incorporates the CERAVE Trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “shop”, which suggests to Internet users that the disputed domain name leads to an official or authorized outlet where the Complainant’s products may be purchased. Such a composition cannot be considered coincidental and rather indicates that the Respondent was aware of the CERAVE Trademark and targeted it when registering the disputed domain name. Considering the distinctiveness and public presence of the CERAVE Trademark, Internet users may think the disputed domain name is connected to the Complainant and would resolve to a website related to the Complainant. Further, the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name previously resolved to an active website styled as an online shop under the heading “CeraVe Store”, prominently displaying the CERAVE Trademark and offering for sale purported CERAVE products. The Respondent thus impersonated the Complainant vis-à-vis consumers, constituting an illegal activity. Moreover, the website under the disputed domain name did not accurately and prominently disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant. As shown above, the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The fact that the disputed domain name currently does not resolve to an active website does not alter this finding, the Respondent’s prior use as described above being decisive. The evidence leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the CERAVE Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. 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 <ceraveshop.live> be transferred to the Complainant. /Manuel Wegrostek/ Manuel Wegrostek Sole Panelist Date: September 22, 2026

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