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 eMadrid Reference 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


Clarins v. Yi Liu

Case No. D2013-2170

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Clarins of Neuilly sur Seine, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France.

The Respondent is Yi Liu of Oslo, Norway.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <clarins.mobi> 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 13, 2013. On December 16, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 16, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that 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”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 6, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 26, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 27, 2014.

On January 28, 2014, the Center received a Supplemental Filing from the Complainant. The Center acknowledged receipt of the Supplemental Filing on January 28, 2014.

The Center appointed Charles Gielen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 28, 2014. 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.

The Panel has decided to accept the Supplemental Filing, using its discretion under paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word mark CLARINS for different goods and services among others in classes 3 and 44. The priority dates of these registrations date back to January 7, 1991 (French registration no. 1637194), October 10, 2006 (Community trademark registration no. 5394283), August 25, 1962 (Norwegian registration no. 87350), January 3, 2004 (Canadian registration no. TMA645123) and February 1, 1994 (Chinese registration also covering Chinese characters no. 796200).

The disputed domain name <clarins.mobi> was created on December 11, 2010.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that it is one of the major actors in the field of cosmetics, make-up and perfumery goods and has been doing business in France for more than 50 years and is well-known worldwide. Furthermore the Complainant contends that the name “Clarins” constitutes its registered company name and the domain name <clarins.com> registered since March 16, 1997, is being used internationally.

The Complainant furthermore states that the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website enabling Internet users to browse through sponsored links in the French language related to products certain of which are competing with the products of the Complainant, and that the Respondent is exploiting the Complainant’s trademark in order to gain “click-through” commissions from the diversion of Internet users. According to the Complainant, the Respondent clearly misleads the consumers and diverts them from the real and official Complainant’s website “www.clarins.com” in order to create a commercial gain for himself.

The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is identical to the above-cited trademarks, company name and domain names consisting in whole or in part of the word “clarins”. Furthermore, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this context the Complainant draws attention to the sentence appearing at the bottom of the website operated under the disputed domain name stating “The domain name clarins.mobi is offered for sale by its owner.” Finally, the Complainant says that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, after having been notified of the Complaint, the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant’s representative on January 17, 2014, asking whether the Complainant would be interested to buy the disputed domain name for an amount of EUR 1,000. This email has been forwarded by the Complainant to the Center in the above-mentioned Supplemental Filing.

6. Discussion and Findings

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant’s contentions are justified and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to the Complainant. The Panel gives the following reasons for its decision.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant proves that it has rights in the trademark CLARINS based on different trademark registrations in the world. The disputed domain name is identical to this trademark. In making the comparison between the trademark and the disputed domain name the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix is usually disregarded. Since the trademark and the disputed domain name are identical, the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. First of all, the Respondent makes a commercial use of the disputed domain name by offering links, probably on a click through commission, to websites where products are being offered that compete with those for which the trademark CLARINS is used. Secondly, the disputed domain name is registered and used after the trademark CLARINS became well-known. Thirdly, the disputed domain name is offered for sale on the website operated by the Respondent. The Respondent did not present any allegations or evidence of rights or legitimate interests he might have in the disputed domain name. In view of the aforementioned, the Panel is of the opinion that the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel is of the opinion that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel recalls that the trademark CLARINS is a well-known trademark and is used and registered before the disputed domain name was registered. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to go to websites with competing products. The Respondent is thus exploiting the repute of the trademark CLARINS. This clearly shows the bad faith intention of the Respondent in registering and using this trademark in the disputed domain name. The bad faith intention can also be deduced from the fact that the Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale on his website and also offered it for sale to the Complainant for a price exceeding the out-of-pocket registration costs directly related to the disputed domain name. The Panel therefore considers the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) to be met.

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 <clarins.mobi> be transferred to the Complainant.

Charles Gielen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 31, 2014