Aubelia v yijiao wu

WIPO Case No. D2023-4607

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

AUBELIA v. yijiao wu

Case No. D2023-4607

1. The Parties

The Complainant is AUBELIA, France, represented by Domgate, France.

The Respondent is yijiao wu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <upuriage.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 7,
2023. On November 8, 2023, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar
verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by
email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for GDPR privacy) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 16,
2023, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the
Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on

November 17, 2023.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 November 28, 2023. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 18, 2023. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 20, 2023.

page 2

The Center appointed Adam Taylor as the sole panelist in this matter on December 22, 2023. 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’s group has used the mark URIAGE in connection with the supply of skincare products since 1992. These products are now available in over 70 countries including China and they are currently being sold worldwide at a rate of one every 10 seconds.

In 2021, the group’s turnover was some USD 63 million.

The Complainant’s URIAGE brand has gained a Facebook following of over 1 million people.

The Complainant operates its own website at “ including a version in Chinese.

The Complainant owns a number of trade marks for URIAGE including:

- French trade mark No. 1732473 registered on March 12, 1993, in classes 3, 5, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32,
39, 41 and 44; and

- International trade mark No.603480 registered on May 19, 1993, in classes 3, 5, 18, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32,
39, 41 and 42, and designating China amongst other countries.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 11, 2023.

As of August 16, 2023, the disputed domain name resolved to a pornographic website.

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letters sent by email on June 2, 14 and

20, 2023.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for transfer of the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Under the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove on the balance of probabilities that:

- the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant
has rights;

- the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

page 3

- the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trade mark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Panel finds the entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms (here, “up”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognised that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

As to paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a pornography site with no obvious connection to the words in the disputed domain name but with the obvious potential to damage the reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark. Such use of the disputed domain name could not be described as bona fide.

Nor is there any evidence that paragraphs 4(c)(ii) or (iii) of the Policy are relevant in the circumstances of this case.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 4

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.

Here, in light the evidence of use of the Complainant’s mark in China and the absence of a plausible explanation from the Respondent, the Panel thinks it reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s highly distinctive mark in mind (albeit that it is not obvious why the Respondent prefaced the mark with the word “up”).

Furthermore, given that the disputed domain name includes that distinctive mark, the Respondent must have known that use of the disputed domain name for pornography was likely to damage the Complainant’s reputation.

Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy.

Based on the available record, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the

Policy.

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 <upuriage.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Adam Taylor/ Adam Taylor Sole Panelist Date: January 5, 2024