Case number | CAC-UDRP-106481 |
---|---|
Time of filing | 2024-04-26 15:40:00 |
Domain names | klarna-online.com |
Case administrator
Organization | Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin) |
---|
Complainant
Organization | Klarna Bank AB |
---|
Complainant representative
Organization | SILKA AB |
---|
Respondent
Organization | COLEGIO EDUCATIVO SC (COLEGIO EDUCATIVOSINALOA) |
---|
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks:
Trademark |
Registration Date |
Territory |
Registration Number |
KLARNA |
22-12-2010 |
International Reg. designating Switzerland, Russia, China, Turkey and Norway (WIPO) |
1066079 |
KLARNA |
07-12-2010 |
Europe |
009199803 |
KLARNA |
04-03-2014 |
International Reg. designating the MEXICO (WIPO) |
1217315 |
KLARNA |
13-08-2014 |
USA |
4582346 |
KLARNA |
11-01-2020 |
International Reg. designating the MEXICO (WIPO) |
018120004 |
("Complainant's Trademarks")
The disputed domain name <klarna-online.com> was registered on 3 March 2024.
As the Respondent did not file any response to the complaint, the Panel took into account the following facts asserted by the Complainant (and supported by the documentary evidence submitted by the Complainant) and unchallenged by the Respondent:
(a) The Complainant is a Swedish e-commerce company that was established in Stockholm, Sweden in 2005. It focuses on providing payment services for online stores, offering various options including direct payments, pay-after-delivery, and instalment plans. The company's main goal is to simplify online shopping and make it more accessible to people. The Complainant has a workforce of over 5,000 employees, with the majority based at the Stockholm headquarters. It is currently one of Europe’s largest banks and is providing payment solutions for over 150 million consumers across 500,000 merchants in 45 countries. In 2021, the company generated $80 billion in gross merchandise volume.
(b) The Complainant is the owner of Complainant's Trademarks; and
(c) The disputed domain name was registered on 3 March 2024 and there is no active website under the disputed domain name.
THE COMPLAINANT:
In addition to the above factual assertions, the Complainant also contends the following:
(i) The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's Trademarks as it includes such trademarks in their entirety and the addition of non-distinctive term “online” is not sufficient to escape the finding of confusing similarity;
(iii) Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademark and reputation, the Complainant can state that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademark and therefore could not ignore the Complainant. Complainant contends that the Respondent has not demonstrated any activity in respect of the disputed domain name, and it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law. Therefore, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and this case is a clear example of so-called cyber-squatting.
THE RESPONDENT:
The Respondent did not provide any response to the complaint.
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
For details, please see "Principal Reasons for the Decision".
The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the Complainant proves each of the following three elements to obtain an order that the disputed domain name should be transferred or cancelled:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(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.
The Panel will now analyse whether the three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in these proceedings.
IDENTITY / CONFUSING SIMILARITY
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s Trademarks as it contains the element “Klarna” which is identical to Complainant’s Trademarks and the addition of non-distinctive element "online” is not sufficient to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant’s Trademarks.
In line with the long-established UDRP practice the Panel also concludes that the top-level suffix in the domain name (i.e. the ".com") must be disregarded under the identity / confusing similarity test as it is a necessary technical requirement of registration.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Complainant satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy (please see, for example, WIPO case No. D2003-0455, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. <croatiaairlines.com>).
As asserted by the Complainant (and unchallenged by the Respondent), the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Neither is the Respondent in any way related to the Complainant. No website is operated under the disputed domain name. The Respondent failed to provide any information and evidence that it has relevant rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the Policy).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent did not establish any right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).
BAD FAITH
The Panel noted that the Complainant is a well-known company worldwide and also has registered trademarks also in Mexico where the Respondent allegedly resides. Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's Trademarks and reputation, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's Trademarks, and therefore could not ignore the Complainant. In this respect, the Panel also deems appropriate to refer to paragraph 2 of the Policy under which it is the responsibility of the Respondent as the registrant of disputed domain name to determine whether its registration infringes or violates someone else's rights.
In the light of the above circumstances the Panel failed to find any plausible good faith reasons for registration and use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent has not submitted any response to the Complaint and therefore has not presented any facts or arguments that could counter the above conclusions of the Panel. As a result, the Panel agrees with the Complainant that this case is a clear example of "cyber-squatting" and holds that the disputed domain name has been registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).
- klarna-online.com: Transferred
PANELLISTS
Name | Michal Matějka |
---|