WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Laboratoires La Prairie SA v. Name Redacted
Case No. D2019-2875
1. The Parties
The Complainant is Laboratoires La Prairie SA, Switzerland, represented by Bar & Karrer, Switzerland.
The Respondent is Name Redacted1, Greece.
2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name <laprairieshop.com> (the “Domain Name”) 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 November 22, 2019. On November 22, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 26, 2019, 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 2, 2019.
Following the notification of the Complaint, the Complainant requested the Center, later the same day of December 2, 2019, to include the domain name <laprairie-shop.com> into the present administrative proceeding, and gave reasons to why it believes the two domain names are registered by the same person.
The Center replied on December 5, 2019: “We note that the Rules do not explicitly provide for a Complaint to be amended after the commencement of proceeding to include additional domain names. Accordingly, it is for the Panel to determine when appointed whether or not to accept the addition of new domain names to the Complaint and order further procedural steps, if any”.
In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 22, 2019. The Center received on December 10, 2019 a communication from a Third Party regarding the claimed unauthorized use of its identity and contact details in relation to the Domain Name in the present proceedings. The Center received no formal Response to the Complaint. Accordingly, the Center notified the Commencement of the Panel Appointment Process on December 24, 2019.
The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2020. 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 company affiliated to La Prairie Group AG. Both companies are 100% subsidiary companies to the Beiersdorf Group. They produce and trade cosmetic and pharmaceutical products in 90 different countries around the world.
The Complainant is the holder of numerous trademarks, such as LA PRAIRIE in Switzerland (P-521666 and P518960) and in the European Union. The Complainant and/or its affiliates run different web sites using the name “La Prairie”.
The Respondent registered the Domain Name on September 26, 2019.
At the time of filing the Complaint, the Domain Name was used for fraudulent shop for the Complainant’s products. At the time of drafting the decision, the Domain Name redirected to an error website.
5. Parties’ Contentions
The Complainant has documented trademark registrations for LA PRAIRIE. The Domain Name completely integrates the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the descriptive term “shop” does not distinguish the Domain Name from the trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. To the Complainant’s knowledge, the Respondent does not own any rights in any trademarks which comprise part or the entirety of the Domain Name, nor is the Respondent commonly known under this name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its registered trademark in any manner. According to the Complainant, the website has been used to deceive customers into believing that the website was an official sales channel or “shop” of the Complainant. In order to lure customers on the website. The Respondent additionally set up an unlawful Facebook account under the name “LaPraire”, using without consent the La Prairie logo.
Finally, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name constitutes bad faith, since the Respondent is creating a confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks and tries to deceive customers. The Complainant argues and documents that the Respondent uses Complainant’s identity and trademarks for fraud attempts. According to user comments on Facebook accounts, products have repeatedly not been delivered upon payment.
On December 10, 2019, the Center received a communication from the individual indicated to be the registrant of the Domain Name, informing the Center of the claimed unauthorized use of its identity and contact details in relation to the Domain Name in the present proceedings.
No other person claiming to be the registrant of the Domain Name filed a response to the Complaint.
6. Discussion and Findings
A. Preliminary issue: Addition of domain name
The Panel declines the Complainant’s request submitted on December 2, 2019 to add the domain name <laprairie-shop.com>. The Panel finds that the purpose of the UDRP is to offer an expedite proceeding to the Parties. The request to include in the proceedings additional domain name would result in an unreasonable delay of the proceedings. See WIPO Overview 3.0 section 4.12.2.
The Panel declines the request without prejudice for the Complainant to file a separate Complaint with the additional domain name.
B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant has established rights in the trademark LA PRAIRIE. The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety, with the addition of the term “shop”. The addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. For the purposes of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
There is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not granted any authorization to the Respondent. The Domain Name redirected to a website to deceive customers into believing that the website was an official sales channel or “shop” of the Complainant. Such use is not bona fide.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the evidence, it is likely that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant’s trademark rights predate the Domain Name registration. The Respondent’s use of the Domain Name and the registration of a false Facebook account using the Complainant’s logo, makes it clear that the Respondent’s intention was to deceive customers of the Complainant. This is strong indication of both bad faith registration and use.
The Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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, <laprairieshop.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Date: January 29, 2020
1 The Panel decided to redact the name of the named Respondent, adopting the criterion of the panel in Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788 (“The Panel has decided that no purpose is to be served by including the named Respondent in this decision, and has therefore redacted its name from the caption and body of this decision. The Panel has, however, attached as Annex 1 to this Decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the Domain Name that includes the named Respondent, and has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding. However, the Panel has further directed the Center, pursuant to paragraph 4(j) of the Policy and paragraph 16(b) of the Rules, that Annex 1 to this Decision shall not be published except under exceptional circumstances”).