The Complainant is a Swedish e-commerce company that was established 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. As of 2011, about 40% of all e-commerce sales in Sweden went through the Complainant. 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 (copy of the webpage about the Complainant). The Complainant is also popular among social media (copy of the webpage on Meta).<\/p>\n
The Complainant places great value on its intellectual property rights as it was successful in numerous UDPR disputes as shown in their list. <\/span><\/p>\n The disputed domain name <klarnaworld.com> (hereinafter “disputed domain name”) was registered on 11 October 2023 according to the Whois information. According to the Registrar, the Respondent is ‘Ciara Sheahan’. The Respondent’s provided address as being at Blessington, Ireland.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT:<\/p>\n A. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks. <\/span><\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant claims that it is the only one in the world to have conceived and adopted the mark “KLARNA” and so has exclusive rights to the mark “KLARNA” (extract from WIPO Brand Database Search). The mark “KLARNA” has been openly, continuously, and extensively used globally for the last numerous years and has thus acquired secondary meaning.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that the registered trademark “KLARNA” is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name <klarnaworld.com>. The registration and the use of the confusingly similar disputed domain name is a direct infringement of the legitimate rights held by the Complainant in the mark “KLARNA”.<\/p>\n As the Complainant points out, previous UDRP panels also have found that the mere addition of a term to a trademark in a domain name does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity.<\/p>\n Lastly, the Complainant contends that the addition of the gTLD “.com” in <klarnaworld.com> does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the trademark.<\/p>\n Thus, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s company name, “KLARNA” trademarks and the related domain names.<\/p>\n B. The Complainant states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. <\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant claims that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because the Respondent is not affiliated with\/authorized by the Complainant in any way to make use of the “KLARNA” mark, while the Complainant has exclusive rights to the trademark “KLARNA”, which is evident from a WIPO Global Trademark database search and otherwise from a Google search as well.<\/p>\n The Complainant has painstakingly built up a good reputation and has invested a substantial amount of resources in promoting its product under the “KLARNA” mark. The disputed domain name has a recent registration as of 11 October 2023, while the Complainant has been using the mark “KLARNA” for over fifteen years. The Complainant’s registered mark is a distinctive term, exclusively associated with the Complainant only that one would not legitimately choose as a domain name without having specific rights to such combination.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that it is extremely difficult to foresee any legitimate use that the Respondent may have with the disputed domain name, which combines the “KLARNA” mark with the “WORLD” word. The said combination is already in use by the Complainant upon its homepage - “klarna around the world<\/em>”, indicating its global presence. The Respondent cannot be said to have legitimately chosen the disputed domain name unless it was seeking to create an impression of an association with the Complainant. Since there is no such authorized association, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name cannot be said to be legitimate. Rather the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name is a clear case of cyber-squatting, the intention is to take advantage of the Complainant's substantial reputation and goodwill in order to cause confusion and mislead the public, thereby tarnishing the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant and its marks.<\/p>\n Given the fame of the Complainant’s mark, any person or entity using the mark\/name “KLARNA” in any manner is bound to lead customers and users to infer that its product or service has an association or nexus with the Complainant and lead to confusion and deception. It is apparent that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s mark and its business activities, which is not only evident from the combination of keywords “KLARNA” and “WORLD” in the passively held domain name (Screenshot of Website) but also has the MX servers configured in the background (MX Records), clearly indicating that the emails have been or planned to be used in near future for phishing, spamming or other illegal activities.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that there is a prima facie proof of the Respondent’s intent to usurp the reputation of the Complainant and make illegal gains off its worldwide reputation and goodwill. Suffice it to state that the said usage of the disputed domain name by the Respondent has the propensity to cause irreparable loss to the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant.<\/p>\n The said usage is certainly not in terms of clause 4(c)(i) or (iii) as neither the demonstrable preparation to use is a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name is being made (Complainant provided screenshot of website as evidence).<\/p>\n Further, it does not satisfy the remaining clause 4(c)(ii) of UDRP either, so as to uphold any kind of legitimate interest in Respondent’s registering or holding of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name incorporates a trademark which is neither owned by the Respondent nor is the Respondent commonly known by the name “Klarna World” either as an individual, business or any other organization. Further, it is clearly not an attempt on the part of the Respondent to make a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it is obviously intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, by the Respondent.<\/p>\n The Complainant concludes that the above facts establish a prima facie case that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and that pursuant to the UDRP, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show it does have a right or legitimate interest.<\/p>\n C. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/span><\/u><\/p>\n The Complainant is one of Europe’s largest banks and is providing payment solutions to approx. 150 million customers in 45 countries in the last decade. The popularity is evident from its advertisement\/promotion, news coverage, active social media pages (copy of the webpage on Meta) and numerous domain names already owned (list of Klarna Domain Names and previous UDRP disputes), which act as a window to the public all over the world to know more about its products and services. Such wide usage of the “KLARNA” mark has resulted in the trademark transcending regional boundaries and acquiring an enviable trans-border reputation. A simple Google search evidences the popularity of the Complainant’s mark and otherwise keywords contained in the disputed domain name make reference to the Complainant only.<\/p>\n The Complainant assumes that given the immense popularity and goodwill enjoyed by the Complainant's trademark globally by virtue of its open, continuous and extensive use and its impeccable market reputation, it is clear that the Complainant’s trademark is well-known and the Respondent knowingly chose to register and use the disputed domain name to divert customers and drawing damaging conclusions as to the Complainant’s operations through the disputed domain name, thus can adversely affect the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation and its right to use the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name can easily be assumed based upon the distinctiveness and the reputation of the Complainant's “KLARNA” mark and the inclusion of the mark in the disputed domain name along with a related keyword.<\/p>\n The Complainant asserts that it is inconceivable that the registration of the disputed domain name was made without any knowledge of the existence of the Complainant and its ‘well-known’ trademark.<\/p>\n The Complainant owns and uses various domain names, all incorporating its “KLARNA” trademark (list of Klarna Domain Names and previous UDRP disputes). Hence, any individual coming across the disputed domain name or an associated email ID ending with “@klarnaworld.com” may assume it to be the Complainant’s website\/email and instantly associate the same with the Complainant. The same is quite evident from the active MX records for the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n The MX servers are pointed towards hosts.co.uk and it has been widely held that activating the MX records to designate an email server and enable email is an action beyond mere registration of the disputed domain name and constitutes bad faith use. There is clear evidence that the Respondent intends to send suspicious emails using email services.<\/p>\n The Complainant adds that given the facts as to unused disputed domain name also satisfies the doctrine of passive holding.<\/p>\n Moreover, the Complainant asserts that it is a settled law that registration of identical or confusingly similar domain name that is patently connected with a particular trademark owned by an entity with no connection with the trademark owner is indicative of opportunistic bad faith as understood in the UDRP.<\/p>\n The Complainant concludes that given the foregoing, the use and registration of the disputed domain name <klarnaworld.com> is clearly intended to capitalize on consumer confusion for Respondent’s profit, a bad faith registration and use under the UDRP.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n No administratively Response has been filed. Nevertheless, the Respondent accessed the online case and filed a simple message on 4 January 2024 stating: “I instructed the domain verification body, Register 365.com on December 6th that I was agreeable to transfer the domain Klarnaworld.com to Klarna AB”.<\/p>",
"rights": " 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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " 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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " 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 UDRP).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " 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.<\/p>",
"decision": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Radim Charvát"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2024-01-29 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:<\/span><\/p>\n Trademark<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration Date<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Territory<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n Registration Number<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 22-12-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n International Reg. designating Switzerland, Russia, China, Turkey and Norway (WIPO)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1066079<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 07-12-2010<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU <\/p>\n<\/td>\n 009199803<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 25-09-2012<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 010844462<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 02-08-2013<\/p>\n<\/td>\n International Reg. designating the United States (WIPO)<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 1182130<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 31-07-2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n EU<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 012656658<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n KLARNA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 13-08-2014<\/p>\n<\/td>\n USA<\/p>\n<\/td>\n 4582346<\/p>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n The Complainant proved its ownership of the listed trademark registrations by the submitted extract from WIPO Brand Database Search.<\/span><\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"klarnaworld.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}\n\n
\n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n \n