About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Case No. DSE2021-0002

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Klarna Bank AB, Sweden, represented by SILKA AB, Sweden.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is E.P, Indonesia

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

This Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding relates to the Domain Name <klarnaclick.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the “.se Policy”) and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the “.se Rules”).

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (“the Center”) verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. The Center invited the Petitioner to amend its Petition on January 26, 2021. The Petitioner submitted an amendment to the Petition on January 27, 2021. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition on January 28, 2021. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder’s default on March 1, 2021.

The Petitioner has elected to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated Proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition. The Domain Holder did not respond to the Petition and the dispute is therefore decided as an Accelerated Proceeding.

The Center appointed Jon Dal as the sole Arbitrator in this matter on March 4, 2021. The Arbitrator has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with Section 1 of the .se Rules.

4. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the Domain Name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

The Domain Holder did not submit any response.

5. Parties’ Contentions

5.1. Petitioner

The Petitioner was founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden, with the aim of making it easier for people to shop online. The Petitioner is now one of Europe’s largest banks and is providing payment solutions for 60 million consumers across 70,000 merchants in 18 countries. The Petitioner offers direct payments, pay after delivery options and installment plans in a smooth one-click purchase experience that lets consumers pay when and how they prefer to. The Petitioner has also a significant presence on various social media platforms, such as Facebook, Youtube, Instagram, Google+ and Twitter.

5.1 A The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the owner of several European trademarks (“EUTM”) for the string KLARNA, for example, trademark registration number 009199803 registered on December 6, 2010. The Petitioner also holds several Swedish national trademark registrations corresponding to the term KLARNA, for instance trademark reg. no 012656658 registered on July 30, 2014. The trademark registrations have legal force in Sweden.

The Domain Name was registered on July 2, 2020 and includes the country code Top-Level Domain (“ccTLD”) suffix “.se”. A ccTLD suffix is generally disregarded for the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under the .se Policy as it is non-descriptive and merely instrumental for registration on the Internet. A ccTLD suffix generally has no capacity to distinguish a domain name from a trademark. The generic word “click” is not capable of dispelling confusing similarity between a domain name and a trademark for the purposes of the first element of the .se Policy.

The first condition under the Terms and Conditions of Registration is hereby met.

5.1.B The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

The Petitioner tried to contact the Domain Holder on November 11, 2020, through a cease and desist letter. In the cease and desist letter the Petitioner advised the Domain Holder that the unauthorized use of its trademarks within the Domain Name violated their trademark rights and the Petitioner requested a voluntary transfer of the Domain Name. The Domain Holder did not submit a response.

The Domain Name is connected to a website selling all sorts of different products. When clicking on the product, the customer is re-directed to the Dutch Aliexpress website to checkout. In May last year, Aliexpress added the Petitioner’s pay later option. Further the Domain Holder is not known by the name KLARNA. The word KLARNA is unique and it doesn’t exist in any known language, it is an invented word by the Petitioner. The word does not exist as a trademark registration other than the Petitioner’s own registration.

A quick search on the Internet (for the word KLARNA) would have alerted the Domain Holder of the rights related to the Petitioner. Such search is something an Internet skilled person does (which the Domain Holder appears to be) when he is about to register a Domain Name.

This is a strong indication of the Domain Holder being in bad faith when registering the Domain Name.

5.1.C The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Name

The Domain Holder has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name not having been in any manner authorized to make use of the KLARNA trademark and not being commonly known by the term KLARNA, which has no meaning but in relation to the Petitioner. The fact that the Domain Name was registered after the registration of the Petitioner’s trademark further supports that the Domain Holder has no right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name. On the contrary, it is unimaginable that the Domain Holder would have registered and used the Domain Name without intention to gain unfair advantages at the expense of the Petitioner. The work “click” connected to the trademark KLARNA further supports an inference with the Petitioner. The Petitioner offers a one-click checkout and the customers can easily settle their bills in just one “click”. The word is closely connected to the Petitioner’s business and used widely connected to the trademark.

In particular, the Petitioner has never granted a permission or license to the Domain Holder to use its KLARNA trademark. Moreover, the Domain Holder has never used and does not intend to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or any other legitimate interest. It is rather that the choice of the Domain Name (which fully incorporates the Petitioner’s trademark), that the Domain Holder deliberately opted for. Taken into account all factors, the Domain Holder should not be seen to have any rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name.

5.1.D Evidence

The Petitioner invokes screen shoots from the Domain Holder’s website, screen shots from Google searches, extracts from trademark register, cease and desist letter, etc. as evidence.

5.2 Domain Holder

The Domain Holder did not submit any response to the Petition.

6. Discussion and Findings

A domain name may be transferred to the party requesting dispute resolution proceedings if the following three conditions are fulfilled:

A. The domain name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the party requesting dispute resolution can prove its rights, and

B. The domain name has been registered or used in bad faith, and

C. The domain holder has no rights or justified interest in the domain name.

All three conditions must be met in order for the party requesting dispute resolution to succeed with a claim for transfer of the domain name.

A. The Domain Name is identical or similar to a name which is legally recognized in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights

The Petitioner is the registered owner of an EUTM registration for KLARNA. The trademark registration has legal effect in Sweden. The Domain Name includes the trademark KLARNA in its entirety and the word “click” in the Domain Name is descriptive. The Domain Name is similar to the Petitioner’s trademark and the first condition is fulfilled.

B. The Domain Name has been registered or used in bad faith

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

C. The Domain Holder has no rights or justified interest in the Domain Names

Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in the Domain Name.

7. Decision

The Domain Name shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

Jon Dal
Date: March 5, 2021

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/