FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n
Founded in France more than 40 years ago by Jean-Noël Thorel, a pharmacist-biologist, NAOS, the Complainant, is a major player in skincare thanks to its three brands: Bioderma, Institut Esthederm and Etat Pur. Ranked among the top 10 independent beauty companies, the Complainant. The Complainant has over 3,100 employees worldwide through its international presence based on 48 subsidiaries and long-term partnerships with local distributors. To sell its branded products “BIODERMA” in over 130 countries, the Complainant operates under the name “BIODERMA”.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the Complainant owns multiple domain names consisting of the wording “BIODERMA”, such as <bioderma.com> registered since September 25, 1997, and used for its official website.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <sale-bioderma.shop> was registered on November 2, 2023, and redirects to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and offering unauthorized or counterfeited BIODERMA goods at discounted prices.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is unaware of any pending or decided legal proceedings relating to the disputed domain name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <sale-bioderma.shop> is confusingly similar to its trademark “BIODERMA” and its domain names associated. Indeed it includes it in its entirety.<\/p>\n
The addition of the term “SALE”, is not sufficient to avoid the likelihood of confusion. It is well-established that “a domain name that wholly incorporates a Complainant’s registered trademark may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity for purposes of the UDRP”.<\/p>\n
Moreover, the Complainant contends that the addition of the TLD “.SHOP” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark. It does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and Complainant, its trademark and its domain name associated.<\/p>\n
Finally, prior decisions confirmed the Complainant’s rights. Please see for instance:<\/p>\n
CAC Case No. 104635, NAOS v. HHShop <bioderma-vn.com>;<\/p>\n
CAC case n° 102992, NAOS v. kivernoxoros <bioderma.shop>;<\/p>\n
Consequently, the disputed domain name <sale-bioderma.shop> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “BIODERMA”. <\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a) (ii) of the UDRP.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is not identified in the Whois database as the disputed domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the Whois information was not similar to the disputed domain name. Thus, the Respondent is not known as the disputed domain name. <\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and he is not related in any way with the Complainant. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.<\/p>\n
Neither license nor authorization has been granted to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks “BIODERMA”, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name redirects to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and offering unauthorized or counterfeited “BIODERMA” goods at discounted prices. Such use demonstrates neither a bona fide offering of goods nor a legitimate interest of Respondent.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, there is no information\/disclaimer on the page of the website to identify its owner. Therefore, the Respondent failed at least in one of the elements of the Oki Data test, i.e. the website linked to the disputed domain name does not disclose accurately and prominently the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder.<\/p>\n
Accordingly, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests on the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “BIODERMA”, registered since 1963 for cosmetics.<\/p>\n
Besides, the Complainant’s trademark and goods are displayed on the website.<\/p>\n
Thus, given the distinctiveness of the Complainant's trademarks and reputation, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant's trademarks.<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the disputed domain name points to a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and offering unauthorized or counterfeited “BIODERMA” goods at discounted prices. The Complainant contends that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the Respondent’s website and goods purportedly advertised therein.<\/p>\n
On these bases, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT:<\/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": "2023-12-27 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns several trademarks, including the wording “BIODERMA” in several countries, such as:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The international trademark “BIODERMA” no. 267207 was registered on March 19th, 1963;<\/p>\n
The international trademark “BIODERMA” no. 510524 was registered on March 9th, 1987, and<\/p>\n
The international trademark “BIODERMA” no. 678846 was registered on August 13th, 1997.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "sale-bioderma.shop": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }