WIPO Domain Name Decision D2019-0864 for klarnapay.com
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Klarna Bank AB v. Yaoliming This Domain is for Sale at S Case No. D2019-0864 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.
The Respondent is Yaoliming This Domain is for Sale at S of Shanghai, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 16, 2019. On April 17, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 17, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details and contact information for the disputed domain name.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2019.
The Center appointed Mario Soerensen Garcia as the sole panelist in this matter on May 17, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB, founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden, one of the Europe’s largest banks nowadays, providing payment solutions for 60 million consumers in 18 countries.
Klarna offers direct payments, pay after delivery options and installment plans in one-click purchase experience that let consumers pay when and how they prefer.
The Complainant owns several trademark registrations for the word mark KLARNA in several countries around the world, including the following International trademark registrations:
-No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014;
-No. 1182130, registered on August 1, 2013; and
-No. 1066079, granted on December 21, 2010 (designating China).
The disputed domain name was registered on October 10, 2018 and resolves to a parking page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA and the term “pay”, that there is no bona fide offering of goods or services and that the Respondent is not known by the name “Klarna”.
According to the Complainant, the Respondent has made no claims neither to have any relevant rights over the disputed domain name nor to make a legitimate, noncommercial use of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant alleges that its registrations of KLARNA precede the registration of the disputed domain name and that it resolves to a parked page with related links to the KLARNA trademark, causing confusion to the public.
The Complainant mentions that it is highly unlikely that the Respondent did not have the trademark KLARNA in mind while registering the disputed domain name and that the additional term “pay” was a convenient term to be associated to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that reproducing a famous trademark in a domain name to attract Internet users cannot be considered as fair use or use in good faith.
Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for KLARNA around the world, including the International trademark registrations No. 1217315, registered on March 4, 2014; No. 1182130 registered on August 1, 2013; and No. 1066079, registered on December 21, 2010 (the latter also designating China).
The Complainant’s trademarks predate the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA in addition to the term “pay”. Indeed, the addition of the term “pay” does not avoid confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark. Such an expression might increase chances of leading Internet users into wrong association and/or confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s mark and its activities related to bank services.
As numerous prior UDRP panels have recognized, the incorporation of a trademark in its entirety or a dominant feature of a trademark is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark. See section 1.7 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
The Panel finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been proved by the Complainant, i.e., the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint.
There is no evidence that the Respondent has any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark or to register domain names containing the trademark KLARNA.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name or that before any notice of the dispute the Respondent has made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, there is evidence in the complaint that the disputed domain name was registered with the intention of profit, since it is being offered for sale.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The trademark KLARNA is registered by the Complainant in several jurisdictions and the already mentioned trademark protections owned by the Complainant predate the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark KLARNA in its entirety with the addition of the term “pay” and the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it.
The Complainant’s KLARNA mark is known by the consumers and has a strong online visibility. Thus, the fact that the disputed domain name comprises such a mark associated with the expression “pay” is itself evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith, as it is very unlikely that the Respondent did not know the Complainant’s marks on the occasion of the registration of the disputed domain name.
Taking also into account that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale and that it was used as a parked page with links related to the Complainant’s business, as per the evidence showed in the Complaint, this Panel finds under the circumstances that the Respondent has intentionally targeted the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name.
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied, i.e., the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 7. Decision
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
Mario Soerensen Garcia
Sole Panelist
Date: May 30, 2019

Full & Egal Universal Law Academy