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

Cult Beauty Limited v. Ijorghe Ghenrimopuzulu, Gold Wave Corp.

Case No. D2019-2919

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Cult Beauty Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Dechert, United Kingdom.

The Respondent is Ijorghe Ghenrimopuzulu, Gold Wave Corp., Zimbabwe.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <cultbeauty.net> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Key-Systems GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 28, 2019. On November 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 29, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 29, 2019, 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 December 2, 2019.

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 December 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 30, 2019.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 8, 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 was founded in 2007 by British and American beauty enthusiasts. The Complainant offers select beauty products and supplies such products to consumers, together with beauty features, tips and celebrity beauty secrets, through its website at “www.cultbeauty.co.uk”. The Complainant’s goods and services are available to 85 different countries including Germany, the United States, Canada, China, Brazil and India. The Complainant has been referred to frequently in the global press and media, and it has received numerous awards.

The Complainant owns rights in the trademark CULT BEAUTY, such as EU trademark registration No. 10304715 (registered on November 14, 2013), UK trademark registration No. 3032733 (registered on April 4, 2014) and US trademark registration No. 4378248 (registered on August 6, 2013).

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on November 30, 2019. The Domain Name automatically redirects to a website with a directory of links to numerous beauty websites.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant has documented trademark registrations in the trademark CULT BEAUTY. According to the Complainant, the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.

The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has not given its consent for the Respondent to use its trademark in any manner. The Domain Name links to a webpage with a directory of links to numerous beauty websites. The goods and services offered at the links are identical or at the very least highly similar to the goods and services offered by the Complainant. The webpage has a link in the top right-hand corner with "BUY THIS DOMAIN”.

Finally, the Complainant submits, inter alia, that the Respondent did not conceive of the name CULT BEAUTY. The Respondent was aware, or should have been aware, of the Complainant and its rights at the time the Domain Name was registered. The Complainant argues that the Respondent chose the Domain Name because it knew that the trademark was well known and associated with the Complainant, and that the Domain Name would as a result draw traffic to the Respondent’s website. Moreover, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established rights in the trademark CULT BEAUTY. 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, save the space between the words CULT and BEAUTY. 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”) “.net”.

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.

B. 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 redirects to a website with a directory of links to numerous beauty websites. The goods and services offered through the links are similar to the goods and services offered by the Complainant. The webpage has a link with an offer to "BUY THIS DOMAIN”. The Respondent’s use is not bona fide.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted 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.

C. 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 fact that the Domain Name redirects to a website with links to beauty websites offering similar goods and services as offered by the Complainant, suggests that the Respondent chose the Domain Name because the Respondent wanted to freeride on the Complainant’s goodwill. Moreover, the Domain Name is offered for sale. In the context of this case, this points to bad faith. So does the fact that the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions.

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.

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, <cultbeauty.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 14, 2020

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/