WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Klarna Bank AB v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot / john doe

Case No. D2021-1524

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 / john doe, Gibraltar, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <meinklarna.com> is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 17, 2021. On May 18, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 19, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 25, 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 26, 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 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 16, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 20, 2021.

The Center appointed Christian Gassauer-Fleissner as the sole panelist in this matter on July 24, 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 is a Swedish based e-commerce company that provides payment services for online storefronts and direct payments along with post-purchase payments. The Complainant’s company was founded 2005, starting its business 2010.

The Complainant is owner of several trademarks named “Klarna” (the “KLARNA trademark”), e.g. a European Union word mark, number 009199803, with the filing date of June 24, 2010, registered on December 6, 2010, and a German wordmark, number 009199803, registered on August 1, 2011. The brand “Klarna” has been used since 2005. The Complainant uses the domain names <klarna.com> and <klarna.de> to promote its services and represent the trademarks. The domain name <klarna.de> is the local German online presence. The Complainant has been active on the German market since 2013.

The disputed domain name <meinklarna.com> was registered on January 9, 2021. At the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website containing pay-per-click-advertisement.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name <meinklarna.com> is confusingly similar to its KLARNA trademark as the disputed domain name uses the trademark entirely. A difference is only created by adding the word “mein”, which means “mine” in German. Therefore, the word does nothing to eliminate confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the trademark. The addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element, according to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”). The addition of the gTLD “.com” does not differentiate the Domain Name from the trademark.

The Complainant further asserts that there is no bona fide offering of goods and services where a domain name incorporates a trademark which is not owned, nor is the Respondent known by the name “Klarna”. The disputed domain name is used as a parking page and resolves to a website containing various links. The Complainant presumes that the Respondent receives pay-per-click revenue for these links. As the page contains links to advertisements that relate at least in part to the trademark KLARNA, it seems that the Respondent hopes to attract users, which are searching for information on the trademark, to click on these links.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was already registered in bad faith, because the brand “Klarna” has been used since 2005, thus it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the unlawful registration. The use of the disputed domain name is also in bad faith because the Complainant sent a cease and desist letter, but the Respondent did not reply. A failure to react to cease and desist letter has been relevant in a finding of bad faith. However, the Respondent has not applied for a trademark named “Klarna”, despite using it.

The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules requires that the Panel’s decision be made “on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable”.

It has been a consensus view in previous UDRP decisions that a respondent’s default (i.e., failure to submit a response) would not by itself mean that the complainant is deemed to have prevailed; a respondent’s default is not necessarily an admission that the complainant’s claims are true (see section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

A complainant must evidence each of the three elements required by paragraph 4(a) of the Policy in order to succeed on the complaint, namely that;

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;

(ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <meinklarna.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s KLARNA mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use.

The Complainant’s mark is in use since 2005 and a registered trademark since 2010 in the European Union, and in Germany since 2011. The trademark is well known for its financial services as one can see by the Google search results, which on the first page all lead to the Complainant’s official website.

The disputed domain name differs only by the word “mein”, which means “mine” or “my” in German. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the KLARNA trademark. While each case is judged on its own merits, in cases where a domain name incorporates the entirety of a trademark, or where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in the domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of UDRP standing (section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview 3.0). The KLARNA trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.

A gTLD is viewed as standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the Complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the often impossible task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (see section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

Based on the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Panel concludes that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s distinctive KLARNA mark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It is very unlikely that the choice of the disputed domain name is a coincidence or an independent flash of inspiration.

The disputed domain name resolves to websites containing pay-per-click advertisement, which as numerous previous UDRP panels have found, does not represent a bona fide offering where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark or otherwise mislead Internet users, which is the case here (see section 2.9 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The Complainant therefore made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests to which the Respondent failed to respond.

Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The fact that the disputed domain name incorporated the Complainant’s mark entirely as its distinctive element and resolves to a website containing pay-per-click-advertisement, demonstrates in view of the Panel that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s brand and rights in the KLARNA trademark. The use of a mark despite being aware of third-party rights indicates bad faith (see section 3.1.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).

The current use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to the websites comprising pay-per-click links further proves to the Panel that the Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark.

The Respondent did not react to any communication attempts by the Complainant, what has to be considered in the terms of bad faith according to past cases (see News Group Newspapers Limited and News Network Limited v. Momm Amed Ia, WIPO Case No. D2000-1623; Nike, Inc. v. Azumano Travel, WIPO Case No. D2000-1598; America Online, Inc. v. Antonio R. Diaz, WIPO Case No. D2000-1460).

For these reasons, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of 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 disputed domain name, <meinklarna.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Christian Gassauer-Fleissner
Sole Panelist
Date: August 7, 2021