{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-106480", "time_of_filling": "2024-04-25 15:42:19", "domain_names": [ "klarnacustomer-support.com" ], "case_administrator": "Olga Dvořáková (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Klarna Bank AB" ], "complainant_representative": "SILKA AB", "respondent": [ " Zivojin Milenkovic ( Global Support United )" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

The Complainant, Klarna Bank AB, was founded in Stockholm, Sweden in 2005. It provides payment services for online stores, offering various options including direct payments, pay-after-delivery, and instalment plans. As of 2011, about 40% of all e-commerce sales in Sweden went through the Complainant. It currently provides payment solutions for over in 45 countries with more than 5,000 employees, service more than 500.000 merchants with approximately 2 million transactions on a daily basis.<\/p>\n

The Complainant holds many registrations for the trademark KLARNA under different classes such as 09, 35, 36, 39, 42, 45 in multiple jurisdictions around the world since 2010, including but not limited to the United States of America, European Union, Australia, Singapore, New Zealand, Chile, Canada, India and China. <\/span><\/p>\n

The Complainant further owns several domain names such as <klarnasupport.com>, which was registered on January 13, 2016. <\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain name <klarnacustomer-support.com> <\/span>was registered on March 26, 2024 and currently resolves to a parked page.<\/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

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME IS CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark “KLARNA”, as it is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name and the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity in such cases.<\/p>\n

The Complainant also states that the top level “.com” does not differentiate the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME<\/p>\n

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name <klarnacustomer-support.com>. The Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant to use its KLARNA trademarks, which is exclusively held by the Complainant and widely recognized globally. The disputed domain name was registered recently, whereas the Complainant has been using its trademark for over 15 years. The disputed domain name combines the Complainant's trademark with related keywords, indicating an intent to mislead and capitalize on the Complainant's reputation, which is not considered a bona fide use, especially as it redirects to unrelated pay-per-click (PPC) links.<\/p>\n

The Complainant further claims that the disputed domain name is parked with PPC links and has active MX servers, suggesting potential misuse for phishing or spamming. Such a setup does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. The registration and use of the disputed domain name appears to be aimed at confusing consumers and taking advantage of the Complainant's established goodwill and reputation. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in holding the disputed domain name, as it incorporates a trademark they do not own and are not commonly known by.<\/p>\n

 The Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence presented suggests that the burden of proof now shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate their legitimate interest, which they have failed to do. Consequently, the Complainant claims that due to the Respondent's lack of legitimate rights and interests, the conditions set out in paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy have been met.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

THE DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME WAS REGISTERED AND IS USED IN BAD FAITH<\/p>\n

The Complainant, as one of Europe’s largest banks, providing payment solutions to approximately 150 million customers in 45 countries over the past decade, argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that its popularity is evident through advertisements, promotions, news coverage, active social media presence, and numerous domain names it owns, which showcase its products and services globally. It was claimed that the Complainant's trademark KLARNA has transcended regional boundaries and gained a significant trans-border reputation and a simple Google search reveals the widespread recognition of the Complainant’s mark, indicating that the Respondent could have easily been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its prominence.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the registration of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of the trademark holder’s rights constitutes bad faith. It is claimed that the Respondent likely knew of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name, especially given the distinctive and well-known nature of the Complainant’s KLARNA trademark.<\/p>\n

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name currently resolves to a parked page with pay-per-click (PPC) links that mislead visitors and generate revenue for the Respondent, which is considered bad faith use. It was also stated that active MX records for the disputed domain name indicate the potential for fraudulent email activities, such as phishing, further supporting the claim of bad faith.<\/p>\n

 Additionally, it was asserted that the use of a privacy or proxy service to obscure the Respondent's identity complicates the Complainant's efforts to address the infringement, also suggesting bad faith. The Complainant argues that the registration of a disputed domain name identical or confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an entity with no connection to the trademark owner demonstrates opportunistic bad faith.<\/p>\n

Consequently, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name to capitalize on consumer confusion for profit, thus constituting bad faith registration and use under the UDRP Policy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

RESPONDENT:<\/p>\n

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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 Policy).<\/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": [ "Mrs Selma Ünlü" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-05 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "

The Complainant has submitted evidence, which the Panel accepts, showing that it is the registered owner of the trademarks bearing “KLARNA”, inter alia<\/em>, the following:<\/p>\n