WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


Klarna Bank AB v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / lin yanxiao

Case No. D2021-1384

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America (“United States”) / lin yanxiao, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain names <klarnabusiness.com>, <klarnapayment.com> and <klarnastores.com> (the “Domain Names”) are registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 5, 2021. On May 5, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Names. On May 6, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 9, 2021 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 amendment to the Complaint on May 11, 2021.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 May 12, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 1, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 2, 2021.

The Center appointed Jeremy Speres as the sole panelist in this matter on June 23, 2021. 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, founded in 2005, is an e-commerce company providing payment services for online stores that include direct payments, pay after delivery and installment options. The Complainant provides payment solutions for over 90 million consumers across 190,000 merchants in over 15 countries in Europe and North America. The company has over 3,000 employees and, in 2019, processed about USD 35 billion in online sales.

The Complainant owns registrations for the KLARNA word mark in many territories. In the Panel’s opinion, the most relevant is International Registration no. 1066079 designating, amongst others, China, registered in 2010.

The Domain Names were registered on March 12, 2021 (according to the publicly available WhoIs), and, as at the filing of the Complaint and the drafting of this decision, the Domain Names resolved to parked pages displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links and offering the Domain Names for sale.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Names are confusingly similar to its mark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in them, and they were registered and used in bad faith given that they take advantage of the Complainant’s well-known trade mark to divert consumers to competing services using PPC advertisements and are offered for sale in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket costs.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Where the trade mark is recognisable in the domain name, the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 1.8). The Complainant’s registered trade mark is the first and most prominent element of the Domain Names and the remainders, apart from the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”), consist of common dictionary terms which do not render the Complainant’s mark unrecognisable.

The Complainant has satisfied the standing requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests and the burden of production shifts to the Respondent (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.1).

The Complainant’s mark was registered (including in the Respondent’s country) and was well-known in numerous major territories long prior to registration of the Domain Names, as confirmed in numerous UDRP cases.

The Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark and the Complainant has certified that the Domain Names are unauthorised by it. There is no evidence that any of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy pertain. The Respondent’s name, per the WhoIs data revealed by the Registrar, bears no resemblance to the Domain Names for the purposes of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. Without the benefit of a Response, the Panel is not aware from the evidence in the case file of any trade marks or of any other circumstances that could give rise to rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent, and therefore assumes there are none or else the Respondent would have put those forward.

The Domain Names have been used for parked pages comprising PPC advertisements linked to commercial websites offering services which, inter alia, compete with the Complainant. UDRP panels have found that use of a domain name to host PPC links does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalise on the complainant’s mark (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 2.9).

The only other evidence of use of the Domain Names is their advertisement for sale, at one point for USD 800. Trading in domain names can constitute a bona fide offering under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy provided it is not undertaken with intent to profit from or abuse trade marks (X6D Limited v. Telepathy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2010-1519). For the reasons detailed in the following section concerning bad faith, it is clear that the Domain Names were registered and used in order to profit from the Complainant’s mark.

The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The evidence establishes that the Complainant’s mark is well-known and highly specific to the Complainant (Internet searches for the mark relate overwhelmingly to the Complainant) and the Domain Names incorporate terms and have been used for services that relate to the Complainant’s business. This is a clear indicator that the Respondent had the Complainant’s mark in mind when registering and using the Domain Names (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.2.1).

The Domain Names have been used to advertise competitors of the Complainant with PPC advertisements, which is a clear indicator of targeting for commercial gain under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See Dr. Martens International Trading GmbH, Dr. Maertens Marketing GmbH v. Private Whois Service, WIPO Case No. D2011-1753. Although the advertisements in this case may be served programmatically by a third party provider, the Respondent cannot disclaim responsibility for them (WIPO Overview 3.0 at section 3.5).

The Respondent has lost over 20 cases as a respondent under the Policy (see, for example, Government Employees Insurance Company (“GEICO”) v. Lin Yanxiao, WIPO Case No. D2021-1033; and Skyscanner Limited v. 林彦晓 (Lin Yanxiao), WIPO Case No. D2020-1588). It is clear that the Respondent is a serial cybersquatter who has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of third party trade marks for commercial gain. This case is merely a continuation of that pattern. A pattern of bad faith conduct is relevant in assessing bad faith generally (WIPO Overview 3.0 at sections 3.2.1 and 3.2.2).

The circumstances are such that it is likely that the Respondent’s intention was to sell the Domain Names to the Complainant (WIPO Overview 3.0 at sections 3.1.1). As USD 800 is likely in excess of the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses relating directly to the Domain Names, paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy is applicable.

The Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

. 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 Names <klarnabusiness.com>, <klarnapayment.com> and <klarnastores.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Jeremy Speres
Sole Panelist
Date: July 1, 2021