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

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Clarins v. Robert Smith, Skincare

Case No. D2014-0282

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Robert Smith, Skincare of Carlton, Nottingham, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <clarins-skincare.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Webfusion Ltd trading as 123-reg (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 25, 2014. On February 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On February 25, 2014, 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 February 27, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 19, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 20, 2014.

The Center appointed Gabriela Paiva Hantke as the sole panelist in this matter on March 25, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, Clarins, is a company duly organized under the laws of France. The Complainant is one of the major actors in the field of cosmetics and make-up goods.

The Complainant has been doing business in France for more than 50 years where it is well-known, and is also well-established worldwide and owns many trademarks worldwide, among them the CLARINS trademark, registered in many countries as France and other European countries, Canada, China, and United Kingdom, copies of such registrations are attached in Annex 5 to the Complaint.

The Complainant also has registered since 1997 the domain name <clarins.com> and also the domain name <clarins.co.uk>. Also, the name Clarins constitutes the registered company name of the Complainant.

The Domain Name was registered on February 11, 2009.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant is the owner of the CLARINS trademark in many countries of the world including France, the country where the Complainant’s company is registered. The Complainant’s trademark is registered in several classes such as 3, 5 and 10, all related to cosmetics, pharmaceutical and related goods. The Complainant also has registered domain names with the word “Clarins” such as <clarins.com> and <clarins.co.uk>, and in addition Clarins is also the name of the company of the Complainant.

The Complainant claims that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s CLARINS trademark; the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name; and the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant is the owner of the CLARINS trademark in many countries of the world including France, the country where the Complainant’s company is registered, and also has registered domain names including the word “Clarins” as expressed above.

The Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> includes the CLARINS trademark that belongs to and is registered in many countries of the world in the name of the Complainant. The words “skin” and “care” do not add any meaningful element with respect to the registered trademark of the Complainant to be able to create a difference. On the contrary the words “skin” and “care” are descriptive words of the industry of cosmetics and beauty services, which are the business areas of the Complainant, so those descriptive words increase the possibility of identifying and confusing the Domain Name with the Complainant’s trademark.

In summary the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the mark owned by the Complainant, so the Complainant has therefore satisfied the first element of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has shown ownership of the CLARINS trademark, registration of domain names including such mark and identification by the name Clarins, which is also the name of the company of the Complainant. In the Panel’s view, the allegations made by the Complainant in the Complaint constitute prima face evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent did not file any response and did not seek to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, and that the Complainant has therefore satisfied the second element of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant has provided screen prints of the website under its domain name <clarins.co.uk> showing use in the cosmetic and beauty industry. The Complainant has also provided screen prints of the website associated to the Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> which shows that the Respondent is using the Domain Name to attract Internet users to browse through sponsored links related to the Complainant’s field of activity, i.e. cosmetics and make-up products.

Given the fame of the Complainant’s trademark and the overall circumstances of the case, the Panel concludes that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith and finds therefore that the Complainant satisfied 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 Domain Name <clarins-skincare.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Gabriela Paiva Hantke
Sole Panelist
Date: April 7, 2014

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/