WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Klarna Bank AB v. Dorin Keith

Case No. D2021-2603

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Dorin Keith, United States of America (“United States”).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <klarnapreipo.com> 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 August 10, 2021. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 11, 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 August 12, 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 August 17, 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 August 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 13, 2021.

The Center appointed Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman as the sole panelist in this matter on September 16, 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.

The Respondent sent an informal email to the Center on September 15, 2021, which was acknowledged on September 17, 2021 and forwarded to the Panel. On September 20, 2021 the Complainant wrote asking about the possibility of suspending the proceeding, again on September 24 and 30 regarding settlement, on October 6, 2021 requesting more time to settle, and then finally on October 13, 2021 requesting reinstitution of the proceeding.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant, founded in 2005, is a financial institution. It specialises in, among other things, the provision of facilities enabling consumers to pay for purchased goods and services over a period of time (also referred to as a “Buy Now, Pay Later” scheme). The scale of the Complainant is illustrated by its having 3,500 employees and operating in 18 countries in Europe, Scandinavia, North America, and the Southern Hemisphere.

In early 2021, the Complainant announced plans to make a future Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) of shares to be listed on the London Stock Exchange.

The Complainant has a number of registered trademarks for KLARNA, of which the following are sufficiently representative for the purposes of the present proceeding:

KLARNA, word mark, United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), registered August 12, 2014, registration number 4582346, in classes 35, 36, 42, and 45;

KLARNA, word mark, USPTO, registered February 24, 2015, registration number 4690489, in class 39;

KLARNA, word mark, International Trademark, registered December 21, 2010, registration number 1066079, in classes 35 and 36;

K., in stylised form, word mark, USPTO, registered April 30, 2019, registration number 5736403, in classes 35, 36, 39,42, and 45.

The Complainant also owns 19 domain names incorporating its trademark, apart from at least another 31 domain names incorporating its trademark received by transfer through previous proceedings under the Policy.

The Complainant is also represented on the social media, namely, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.

The Respondent has not provided any background information. All that is known about the Respondent is the contact information provided to the Registrar for the purpose of registration of the disputed domain name, which resolves to a website (the “Respondent’s website”) in the nature of financial services, and the information provided on that website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights.

The Complainant says its trademark is unique and exclusive to itself and is registered in several countries including the United States, European Union, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, India, and China, together with its International Trademarks. The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and the term “pre ipo”. This term pertains to the Complainant’s intended future IPO which became public news in February 2021.

The Complainant says the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant has never authorised the Respondent to use its trademark in any way and has no association with the Respondent. The Respondent’s website appears to be connected with Belite Capital LLC, whose email address is given on the website, and appears to be intended to attract potential investors in the Complainant’s IPO, whereby the Respondent offers to reserve shares for “applicants who qualify”. The Complainant says this cannot be a bona fide offering of goods or services because the Respondent is not authorised to use the Complainant’s trademark and is attempting to trade on the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. This has the potential to be damaging to the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant. There is no evidence the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. There is no evidence the Respondent has intended to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant says it is one of Europe’s largest banks with about 90 million customers in 18 countries. The Complainant’s trademark is so well known internationally that the Respondent had at least constructive knowledge but in fact actual knowledge of the trademark, which also could have been found easily by searching. Details surrounding the forthcoming IPO, including the use of the term “pre IPO”, have been well announced publicly by the Complainant. It is inconceivable that the registration of the disputed domain name was made without knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and its plans for an IPO.

The Complainant, largely by reference to previous cases under the Policy and to the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) at section 3.1.4, says the Respondent intends to present a false impression to Internet users that its website is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant, and that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore the incorporation of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name without any possible legitimate use, is in itself sufficient to establish that registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent have been in bad faith.

The Complainant has cited and quoted at length from a number of previous decisions under the Policy, some of which have concerned the Complainant.

The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent made no formal reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

After the Notification of the Respondent Default had been sent on September 13, 2021, the Respondent sent an email to the Center on September 15, 2021 that said:

“We were unaware of such claims until now. Before we prepare a more lengthy response, please ask the claimant to:
1. Review the website again. It has been updated to reflect the purpose of our domain name.
2. Contact Belite Capital’s Co-Founder and Managing Director, Dorin Lee. Her direct mobile number: [redacted]
Thank you”.

On September 30, 2021, further to the Parties seeking to settle the present dispute, the Respondent wrote stating: “Hello, I have not had enough time to review this paperwork. I will need an extension.”

On October 6, 2021, the Complainant’s representative wrote stating: “Can you let us know if you need an extension to review the settlement agreement I sent? Over the phone you said you would be willing to transfer the domain name so I just need to understand whether you wish to respond to the actual complaint or in relation to the settlement agreement?”

Having not heard back, the Complainant’s representative wrote on October 13, 2021 asking to reinstitute the proceedings.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Procedural Matters

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Respondent is required to submit to a mandatory administrative proceeding in the event that the Complainant asserts to the applicable dispute-resolution provider, in compliance with the Rules, that:

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

(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

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

The Complainant has made the relevant assertions as required by the Policy. The dispute is properly within the scope of the Policy and the Panel has jurisdiction to decide the dispute.

The Respondent did not submit a formal Response by the due date. Two days after the Notification of the Respondent Default, being eight days after the due date for a Response and 28 days after Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was sent to the Respondent, the Respondent emailed to say it had not been aware of the Complaint.

Communication records show that the Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding was sent by the Center to: the Respondent’s stated email address; the email address of Belite Capital LLC as stated on the Respondent’s website; and to the email postmaster corresponding to the disputed domain name. Delivery to those email addresses was signalled as complete on the same date.

The paper version of the notification was sent by courier on the same date to the Respondent at their stated physical address and was recorded as delivered the following day, with an electronic proof of delivery number.

The notification was also sent via the Registrar addressed to the registrant’s administrative and technical contacts, with a standard request that it be forwarded to the Respondent.

A separate message, giving details about the Complaint in the Center’s standard format for such purposes, was sent to the Respondent through a website contact form provided on the Respondent’s website, and receipt was acknowledged with, “thank you for your interest you should receive an email soon”.

Under paragraph 2(a) of the Policy the Respondent is required to ensure that statements made in the Registration Agreement are complete and accurate. Under paragraph 5 of the GoDaddy Domain Name Registration Agreement the Respondent has agreed to provide and keep current their postal address, email address and telephone number. In any case the email address stated on the Respondent’s website is evidently correct and operational since the Respondent replied from that address in reply to the Notification of the Respondent Default.

The Respondent evidently does business in the field of financial and investment services, a notoriously fast-moving field of business. It would be extraordinary if such a company did not monitor all its communications systems assiduously.

As observed in Grove Broadcasting Co. Ltd v. Telesystems Communications Limited, WIPO Case No. D2000-0703, “The Respondent is always advised by email of the filing of the Complaint. [The] Center goes to some lengths to ensure that proper service is effected on the named registrant at the place disclosed in the WHOIS database or in the information supplied to the domain name Registrar. Some registrants provide only a post office box number or a convenience address. If the place of service does not happen to be the Respondent’s address as advised to the Registrar, then the Respondent has only him or herself to blame in that circumstance. As a final precaution in favor of a Respondent, the WIPO Panel is under an independent duty, after perusing the file, to be satisfied that there was proper service. So one inclines to the view that, in the context of this specialized procedure, failure to serve a Respondent would not be a likely ground for a rehearing”.

Having perused the files, the Panel is satisfied that the Center has taken all reasonable steps required under paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to effect proper service of the Complaint. The Respondent has not offered any reason for its failure to meet the deadline for the submission of a Response, and in fact has clearly received notice as evidenced by its various communications noted above. In accordance with the provision of paragraph 14(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall proceed to a decision on the Complaint.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel is satisfied by the copies of Internet search records provided by the Complainant that it has rights in the trademarks for KLARNA listed in section 4 above.

The disputed domain name is <klarnapreipo.com>, of which the generic Top-Level Directory (“gTLD”) “.com” may be disregarded in the determination of confusing similarity. The trademark KLARNA is clearly recognisable as the first word in the disputed domain name. The suffixed term “preipo”, which in the context may reasonably be taken to mean “pre IPO”, is found not to prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Panel finds the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark and finds for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has stated that it has never authorised the Respondent to use its trademark in any way and has no association with the Respondent. The Complainant has stated a prima facie case to the effect that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides for the Respondent to contest the Complainant’s prima facie case under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy and to establish rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name by demonstrating, without limitation:

“(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue”.

The Respondent has not responded formally and has not asserted rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name with reference to paragraphs 4(c)(i), (ii), or (iii) of the Policy or otherwise, but instead indicted to the Complainant’s representative that it would transfer the disputed domain name to the former’s control. The Complainant has moreover produced evidence that the website to which the disputed domain name has resolved displays prominently the Complainant’s name, trademark, and its stylised “K.” logo with the addition of the sign ® meaning registered trademark. As the Panel sees it, the Respondent’s website is portrayed as representing or speaking for the Complainant without permission and as such does not qualify as a bona fide supply of goods or services, or as a fair or noncommercial use. There is furthermore no evidence the Respondent is or has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has met its burden under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Complainant must prove under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location”.

The provisions of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are without limitation and bad faith may be found alternatively by the Panel.

A screen capture produced by the Complainant on July 25, 2021, showed the nature of the Respondent’s website at that time. Most pages have the page title “Klarna | Buy Pre-IPO Shares”. The website is headed prominently with the Complainant’s distinctive trademark K. stylised with curves, as exhibited in USPTO trademark number 5736403, and with the addition of the symbol ®, followed on the same line by “KLARNA PRE-IPO SHARES”. This line is repeated on each page. Other headings include “Invest Today” and “READY TO INVEST?”.”

A box for contacting the Respondent, headed “Reserve My Klarna Shares”, requires the visitor to provide their first name, last name, and email address, with the option to provide their telephone number and to add a message, above “Submit”. An email address is also provided. Under the headings “ABOUT US” and “Klarna Everywhere”, the website provides information and statistics about the Complainant.

Various statements disclose that the Respondent acts as an agent for others, for instance under “Invest Today” it states, “Let us match you with a fully-vetted financial professional to invest in hot Pre-IPO, Klarna”. The box containing the contact form includes the statement, “For applicants who qualify, your contact information will be submitted to a qualified financial professional with access to this very exclusive product. You will be contacted within 24-48 business hours on whether your profile has been accepted or not. Thank you!”

In accordance with section 4.8 of WIPO Overview 3.0, and noting the content of the email received from the Respondent on September 15, 2021, the Panel viewed the Respondent’s website on September 21, 2021. The website continued to have pages titled “Klarna | Buy Pre-IPO Shares” and headed “K.® KLARNA PRE-IPO SHARES”. The website had the same “Invest Today” box and “Let us match you with a fully-vetted financial professional to invest in hot Pre-IPO, Klarna”. The same form was present for contacting the Respondent including the same statement about a qualified financial professional, as was other information about the Complainant.

On the evidence, the Panel finds the disputed domain name to be in use for the purpose of inducing Internet visitors to visit the Respondent’s site. The Respondent’s means of attracting clients to its website is by display of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name and on the website in conjunction with the phrase “preipo”, which the Panel finds likely to confuse at least some people seeking the Complainant and information about the IPO into believing erroneously that they are dealing with the Complainant or its authorised agent.

Accordingly, on the totality of the evidence and on the balance or probabilities, the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name are found to be in bad faith within the meaning of paragraphs 4(b)(iv) and 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, <klarnapreipo.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Dr. Clive N.A. Trotman
Sole Panelist
Date: October 15, 2021