FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Founded in Stockholm in 2005, Klarna Bank AB operates a banking and payments business in 45 countries with more than 5,000 employees, serving in excess of 400,000 merchants, 147 million consumers and with approximately 2,000,000 transactions every day. The Complainant offers safe and easy-to-use payment solutions to e-stores, e.g. after-delivery-payment which allows buyers to receive the ordered goods before any payment is due, attracting major international clients such as Spotify, Disney, Samsung, Wish, ASOS and many others.<\/p>\n
The Complainant has registered a number of domain names under several different Top-Level Domains (\"TLD\") containing the term \"klarna\", for example <klarna.com> (created December 12, 2008), as well as multiple others. Complainant uses these domain names to inform potential customers about its “KLARNA” mark and its products and services.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on January 16, 2023.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any other pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The disputed domain name, which was registered on January 16, 2023 directly and entirely incorporates the Complainant’s well-known registered trademark “KLARNA”. The addition of the generic word “pay” or a generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD) “.com” does not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The above-mentioned principles should apply in the current case and the disputed domain name should therefore be considered confusingly similar to the registered trademark “KLARNA” in which the Complainant have rights.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent has never been a licensee of the Complainant and does not have any rights to use the Complainant’s trademark. Furthermore, there is no active website on the disputed domain name. It has been established in previous UDRP cases that such use cannot constitute a right or legitimate interest in the domain name.<\/p>\n The Complainant has been able to capture an archive screen shot of what the site used to look like. The disputed domain name was connected to a site that featured the “KLARNA” logo and it stated “Unser Payment Gateway” and the language of the site was German. It is clear that the owner used the disputed domain name to connect it to a site to come across as “Klarna”.<\/p>\n Clearly, the Respondent lacks right to the disputed domain name, is not known by the disputed domain name nor have the Respondent made legitimate, non-commercial fair use of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n <\/p>\n It has to be noted that the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name and therefore it seems highly unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the existence of the trademarks and the unlawfulness of the registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the addition of a related generic term such as “pay” in combination Complainant’s well-known mark in its entirety, further clearly indicate that the Respondent was aware of the services offered by the Complainant under the trademark “KLARNA” and creates a presumption of bad faith. In this case, the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s widely-known “KLARNA” mark plus the descriptive words “pay” that is related to the Complainant’s payment services, thus, creating a presumption of bad faith.<\/p>\n According to paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy, bad faith registration and use can be found when a respondent registered or has 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 the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name.<\/p>\n Bearing in mind the distinctiveness of the “KLARNA” mark (with no meaning in English language), their presence in full in the disputed domain name and the fact that the Respondent used to connect the disputed domain name to a site featuring the “Klarna” logo and “Klarna” trademark amounts to registration and use of the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n Currently the disputed domain name resolves to parking website which may amount to passive use by the Respondent. In this regard, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 states that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding, if certain circumstances are met.<\/p>\n Applying these circumstances to this case, the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name has the characteristics which are associated with bad faith registration and use, as set out at section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, since:<\/p>\n (i) According to the evidence on record, it is more than likely that the Respondent was aware of the Complainants’ trademarks at the time of its registration of the Domain Name;<\/p>\n (ii) the Respondent is using a privacy service to conceal its identity;<\/p>\n (iii) only someone who was familiar with the Complainants’ marks and their activities would have registered a domain name including solely the Complainants’ “KLARNA” mark connecting it to a Klarna site.<\/p>\n (iv) having regard to the popularity of the Complainants’ “KLARNA” marks and the structure of the disputed domain name (almost identical to the domain name <Klarna.com>, it is impossible to think of any good faith use to which the disputed domain name could be put by the Respondent.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n In view of all these circumstances, the Complainant contends that it has fulfilled the third requirement of the UDRP and established that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response was filed.<\/p>",
"rights": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has shown that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " To the satisfaction of the Panel, the Complainant has 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).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP have been met, and there is no other reason why it would be unsuitable for providing the Decision.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Rodolfo Rivas Rea"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2023-05-01 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the following trademarks:<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n
\n