WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Klarna Bank AB (publ) v. Siobhan Pankhurst Case No. DEU2018-0016 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Klarna Bank AB (publ) of Stockholm, Sweden, represented by SILKA Law AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Siobhan Pankhurst of Cork, Ireland. 2. The Domain Name, Registry and Registrar

The Registry of the disputed domain name is the European Registry for Internet Domains (“EURid” or the “Registry”). The Registrar of the disputed domain name is GoD, LLC. 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 31, 2018. On June 1, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registry a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 5, 2018, the Registry transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “ADR Rules”) and the World Intellectual Property Organization Supplemental Rules for .eu Alternative Dispute Resolution Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(2), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on June 12, 2018. In accordance with the ADR Rules, Paragraph B(3), the due date for Response was July 24, 2018. The Center received an email communication from the Respondent on July 23, 2018, consenting to the remedy in the Complaint. On the same day, the Complainant informed the Center and the Respondent that it will await the outcome of the decision. Upon receipt of the Respondent’s communication, the Center notified the Parties that the Response was formally deficient and requested the Respondent to cure the deficiencies until August 1, 2018. The Respondent did not submit a compliant Response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 2, 2018.

The Center appointed Tobias Malte Müller as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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 ADR Rules, Paragraph B(5). 4. Factual Background

The Complainant is the registered owner of European Union Trademark registration no. 009199803 KLARNA registered on December 6, 2010 for services in classes 35 and 36.

The Complainant is also the owner of the company name Klarna Bank AB and of several domain names such as , , , , etc.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 20, 2017. The disputed domain name resolves to a registrar parking website.

It results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that on September 5, 2017, it sent a cease and desist letter to the Respondent requesting the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Respondent replied with email dated September 5, 2017, that he is willing to transfer the disputed domain name for
EUR 1,500, negotiable. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

According to the Complainant’s undisputed allegations, it was founded in 2005 in Stockholm, Sweden and is now one of Europe’s largest banks.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, since it incorporates the term “klarna” in full, combining it with the descriptive term “bank” and the suffix “.eu” that do not add any distinctiveness to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make use of the KLARNA trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent is not commonly known by the term “klarna”, which has no meaning but in relation to the Complainant. It is unimaginable that the Respondent would have registered and used the disputed domain name without intention to gain unfair advantages at the expense of the Complainant. Moreover, the Respondent has never used and does not intend to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or any other legitimate interest.

Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and/or is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain name must have been alerted by the extensive media coverage on the Complainant. Furthermore, the Respondent only used the disputed domain name to resolve to a registrar parking website. Passive holding does not preclude a finding of abusive registration. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions in its email dated July 23, 2018. 6. Discussion and Findings

According to Article 22 (11) of the Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 (“the Regulation”) an ADR procedure may be initiated by any party where the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21. In the present case, the question is therefore, whether the registration is speculative or abusive within the meaning of Article 21 of the Regulation. According to this disposition and Paragraph B 11(d)(1) of the ADR Rules the Complainant bears the burden of proving the following:

(a) the disputed domain name is identical with or confusingly similar to a name in respect of which a right is recognized or established by the national law of a Member State and/or Community law, and either

(b) the domain name has been registered by the Respondent without rights or legitimate interest in the name, or