The Complainant is a French family-owned pharmaceutical and dermo-cosmetics laboratory, which claims more than 70 years’ experience and expertise. The Complainant develops and manufactures osteoarthritis and skincare products, counting 13 subsidiaries in over 100 countries. 78 per cent of the company’s turnover in 2023 was generated from international business.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns two brands, Piasclédine 300 and Mustela. Mustela is the leading brand for the daily child and baby care products market in France.<\/p>\n
The Complainant owns several trademarks for the word mark MUSTELA, dating back to 1951. The Complainant owns and communicates through various websites worldwide, the relevant one for this administrative proceeding being found at the domain name <mustela.com>, registered and used since December 3, 1998.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name was registered on April 28, 2024. It resolves to a page at <dynadot.com> where it is offered for sale at a “Buy Now” price of EUR 46.01.<\/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 Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive MUSTELA trademark which is incorporated in the disputed domain name in its entirety, without any additions, deletions or alterations. The Complainant contends that the addition of the Top-Level Domain “.xyz” does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to Complainant’s trademark, adding that it does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant, its trademark and its associated domain names.<\/p>\n
The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is not related in any way to the Complainant, and does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with, the Complainant. The Complainant states that it has not granted any license or permission to the Respondent to use its MUSTELA trademark. The Complainant notes that the disputed domain name is offered for sale by the Respondent and contends that such general offer to sell the disputed domain name is evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests within the meaning of the Policy.<\/p>\n
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith, adding that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s distinctive trademark MUSTELA which was registered many years before the registration of the disputed domain name. Given the distinctiveness of said trademark and the extent of the Complainant’s reputation, the Complainant asserts that it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant claims that, as the disputed domain name redirects to a page where it is offered for sale, the Respondent fails to make an active use of the disputed domain name, adding that previous panels in cases under the Policy have held that failure to use a domain name actively may be evidence of bad faith registration and use. The Complainant concludes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to sell it to the Complainant for more than its out-of-pocket costs, which evinces bad faith registration and use.<\/p>\n
Respondent:<\/p>\n
The Respondent contends that the Complaint should be denied.<\/p>\n
The Respondent accepts that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark but claims not to have been aware of the Complainant or its mark prior to acquiring it. The Respondent states that it is not located in a territory covered by the Complainant’s trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent asserts that it is difficult for individual registrants to know which domain names correspond to trademarks, adding that the disputed domain name was freely available for anyone to register and that the registry did not indicate that it corresponded to any trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent submits that it is not illegal to offer a domain name for sale and that doing so can be a legitimate business activity. The Respondent contends that offering the disputed domain name for sale does not mean it is targeting the trademark owner, and adds that the Respondent is not promoting any products which are competitors of the Complainant’s products.<\/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": [ "Andrew Lothian" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-06-07 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is owner of International Registered Trademark no. 154904 for the word mark MUSTELA, registered on July 16, 1951 in Classes 3 and 5, designated in respect of more than 25 territories.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "mustela.xyz": "TRANSFERRED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }