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 eMadrid Reference 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


Johnson & Johnson, Korres S.A. v. Texas International Property Associates

Case No. D2010-1996

1. The Parties

The Complainants are Johnson & Johnson of New Jersey, United States of America; and Korres S.A. of Athens, Greece represented by Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, PC, United States of America.

The Respondent is Texas International Property Associates of Dallas, Texas, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <korresproducts.com> ("the Domain Name") is registered with Fabulous.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 19, 2010. On November 22, 2010, the Center transmitted by email to Compana LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 23, 2010, Fabulous.com. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On December 6, 2010, Fabulous.com sent an e-mail to the Center, explaining that it was now the registrar of the disputed domain name.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2010. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was December 14, 2010. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 15, 2010.

The Center appointed Dawn Osborne as the sole panelist in this matter on January 5, 2011. 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

Complainants own trade mark registrations for KORRES or marks including KORRES around the world. All non United States of America (“US”) registrations are owned by Korres SA and all registrations in the US are owned by Johnson and Johnson, the exclusive licensee and distributor in the US. Korres SA is a Greek company which was founded in Athens as a homeopathic pharmacy in 1996. The Domain Name was registered in 2006 and has been used to point to third party heath and beauty products not connected to the Complainants.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant's submissions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainants are Korres SA ("Korres") and Johnson and Johnson. Korres is a Greek company founded in 1996 as a homeopathic pharmacy which offers over 400 natural and certified organic products, featuring a skin and hair range, a make up line as well as suncare products and herbal preparations which are sold at leading department stores around the world and at 26 standalone Korres Stores. Johnson and Johnson, the world's eighth largest pharmaceuticals company, is the exclusive licensee and distributor for the USA where the products have been available since 2004. Johnson and Johnson own all registrations and applications for the KORRES mark in the USA and Korres own the registrations and applications for KORRES for the rest of the world including the Community Trade Mark. The Complainants own and operate web sites at “www.korres.com” and “www.korresusa.com”.

Respondent registered the Domain Name on 2006 after the Complainants’ trade marks were registered in the US and Greece and the Complainants had established rights in the KORRES mark through extensive use around the world. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainants’ KORRES trade marks. The generic term "products" does nothing to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainants’ marks.

The Complainants have not authorised the Respondent to use or register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name as has no legitimate right or interest in the Domain Name.

The Domain Name is being used to attract users looking for the Complainants in order to generate pay per click revenue as the page attached to the Domain Name contains links to websites of other health and beauty companies not associated with the Complainant. Users may assume the Domain Name and the website associated with it are owned or approved by the Complainants. The only reason the Respondent could have for registering the Domain Name was that it knew of the Complainants' marks and wanted to trade on the Complainants' reknown to lure consumers to its web site. The Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain Internet users to a web site by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the site.

The Respondent is a serial cybersquatter owning thousands of domain name registrations and has been found to have registered and used many domain names in bad faith under the UDRP in similar circumstances to this case.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:

The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

The Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Domain Name consists of the Complainants' KORRES registered mark and the generic word "products" which does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainants’ trade mark and the generic “.com” top level domain which is ignored for the purposes of the Policy. As such the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainants have rights for the purpose of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has not filed a Response, does not appear to have any trade marks associated with “korres”, is not commonly known by this name and does not have any consent from the Complainants to use this name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Rules sets out non-exclusive criteria which shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith including circumstances where, by using the domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its 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 its web site or location or of a product or service on its web site or location.

It does appear that the Respondent has attempted to attract and cause confusion amongst Internet users between the Complainants’ marks and goods and the third party links on the site attached to the Domain Name for commercial gain.

It also appears that the Respondent has been found to have registered and used in bad faith several other Domain Names containing the trade marks of third parties under the UDRP.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name <korresproducts.com> be transferred to the Complainant Johnson & Johnson.

Dawn Osborne
Sole Panelist
Dated: January 19,2011