À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

Alternative Dispute Resolution Proceeding

Accelerated Proceeding

Decision: September 15, 2017

Case No. DSE2017-0005

1. Petitioner

The Petitioner is Laboratoires Expanscience S.A., France, represented by Nameshield, France.

2. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder is Alpha Domains Ltd, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

3. Domain Name and Procedural History

Alternative dispute resolution proceeding regarding the domain name <mustela.se>.

This Petition was filed under the Terms and Conditions of registration (the ".se Policy") and the Instructions governing Alternative Dispute Resolution proceeding for domain names in the top-level domain .se (the ".se Rules").

The WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ("the Center") verified that the Petition satisfied the formal requirements of the .se Policy and the .se Rules. In accordance with Section 13 of the .se Rules, the Center formally notified the Domain Holder of the Petition. The Domain Holder did not submit any response and, accordingly, the Center notified the Domain Holder's default.

The Center appointed Jan Rosén as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 2017. 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 Section 1 of the .se Rules.

The Petitioner has elected to have the dispute decided as an Accelerated proceeding if the Domain Holder does not respond to the Petition.

4. Factual Background

The company Laboratoires Expanscience is a French family-owned company and a pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics laboratory. It has been developing its expertise for more than 60 years, selling its products in more than 100 countries. Created by the Petitioner in 1950, MUSTELA is the leading cosmetic brand in the European pharmaceutical market for baby products. Growing steadily, the company now sells more than 10 million products a year throughout the world (annex 1 to the Petition). Numerous websites sell Mustela's products worldwide, such as in Sweden, as demonstrated in annex 2 to the Petition.

The Petitioner is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the term MUSTELA, including the International Trademark Registration No. 154904, registered July 16, 1951, for goods in classes 3 and 5, and covering a number of countries, including Sweden (annex 3 to the Petition).

The Petitioner also communicates worldwide on the Internet through various websites. The main website is found at the domain name <mustela.com> (registered on December 3, 1998), but the Petitioner has also registered other domain names such as <mustela.be> (registered on March 16, 2001), <mustela.fi> (registered on November 25, 2016) and <mustela.no> (registered on October 1, 2010).

The disputed domain name <mustela.se> was registered on May 23, 2013, by Alpha Domains Ltd. The website in relation with the disputed domain name displays a webpage with information of casinos (annex 6 to the Petition).

5. Claim

The Petitioner claims that the domain name <mustela.se> shall be transferred to the Petitioner.

6. Parties' Contentions

A. Petitioner

(i) The domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Petitioner has rights. The Petitioner owns several international trademark registrations consisting in the wording MUSTELA in many countries, of which Sweden is one. The Petitioner contends that the disputed domain name <mustela.se> is identical to its prior trademark MUSTELA. Indeed, the domain name contains the Petitioner's trademark without adjunction of any letter or word. The Petitioner contends that the addition of the country code
Top-Level Domain (ccTLD) ".se" does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the trademark MUSTELA of the Petitioner. Furthermore, a Google search on MUSTELA provides several results, all of them being linked with the Petitioner.

On those facts, the Petitioner contends the disputed domain name <mustela.se> is identical to its prior trademark MUSTELA.

(ii) The Domain Holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name. The Petitioner contends that the Domain Holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <mustela.se> and is not related in any way with the Petitioner. The Petitioner does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Domain Holder. Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Domain Holder to make any use of the trademark MUSTELA, or any application for registration of the disputed domain name by the Petitioner.

Furthermore, since the end of 2014, the website in relation with the disputed domain name displays information of online casinos without any connection to the term "mustela". Thus, the Domain Holder has registered the disputed domain name <mustela.se> with the sole aim to prevent the Petitioner to register it, and to divert Internet traffic. In consequence, the Domain Holder has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <mustela.se>.

(iii) The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The trademark MUSTELA is exploited in the whole World, especially in Europe and in Sweden. Indeed, the Petitioner authorizes retailers to sell MUSTELA's products. The website in connection with the disputed domain name <mustela.se> displays information of online casinos, without any modification since the end of 2014.

On those facts, the Petitioner contends that the disputed domain name was registered in sole purpose of preventing the Petitioner to register its trademark in a corresponding domain name. Furthermore, the Domain Holder has not, in any way, showed that the domain name was registered in good faith; the content of the website displays information in relation to online casinos.

Thus, the Petitioner contends the Domain Holder has registered and is using the disputed domain name <mustela.se> in bad faith.

B. Domain Holder

The Domain Holder did not reply to the Petitioner's contentions.

7. Discussion and Findings

A. Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the domain name <mustela.se> is identical to the trademark MUSTELA (see Section 7.2.1 of the .se Policy), which is legally binding in Sweden and to which the Petitioner can prove its rights.

B. Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the domain name <mustela.se> has been both registered and used in bad faith (see Section 7.2.2 of the .se Policy).

C. Based on the record, the Arbitrator finds that the Domain Holder has no rights or justified interests in the domain name (see Section 7.2.3 of the .se Policy).

8. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Section 21 of the .se Rules and Section 7.2 of the .se Policy, the Arbitrator orders that the disputed domain name <mustela.se> be transferred to the Petitioner.

Jan Rosén
Sole panelist
Date: September 15, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/