Caudalie Group Limited v Carlos Josymar

WIPO Case No. D2025-2022

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Caudalie Group Limited v. Carlos Josymar

Case No. D2025-2022

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Caudalie Group Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Cabinet Germain & Maureau,

France.

The Respondent is Carlos Josymar, Brazil.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <caudaliebr.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 21, 2025. On
May 22, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in
connection with the disputed domain name. On May 23, 2025, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact
information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 23, 2025,
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 May 26, 2025.

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 May 30, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 19, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 23, 2025.

page 2

The Center appointed Manuel Moreno-Torres as the sole panelist in this matter on June 25, 2025. 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 a skincare company doing business in 50 countries with over 1500 employees.

The Complainant’s primary domain name is <caudalie.com> was registered on November 19, 1997, and receives around 500 thousand visits per month to the website.

The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations across different jurisdictions for CAUDALIE.

By way of example:

- International trademark with registration No. 1281857, registered on October 22, 2015.

- European Union Intellectual Property Office with registration No. 018358555, registered on
December 18, 2020.

- Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial do Brazil with registration No. 918560039, registered on
March 3, 2022.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 3, 2025, and resolved to a website misrepresenting the
Complainant in Brazil and reproducing its logo and intellectual property. The website also contained the
name and address of the Complainant’s subsidiary in Brazil, along with an e-mail address

“[...]@caudaliebr.com”. Currently the disputed domain name is inactive.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

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

Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the
Complainant’s trademark, as it comprises the CAUDALIE trademark plus the term “br” and acronym for
Brazil.

The Complainant also alleges that none of the circumstances depicted in paragraph 4 (c) of the Policy applies in this case. In particular, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent resolved the disputed domain name to a website creating the false impression that it was authorized and administered by the

Complainant. Accordingly, the Complainant had to take action in order to have this fake site down.

Under the circumstances of the case, e.g., the reproduction of the trademark in the disputed domain name or
the reproduction of the intellectual property in the corresponding website, the Complainant submits that the
Respondent knew or should have known about CAUDALIE.

Besides, says the Complainant, the Respondent attempted to pass off the website as belonging to the Complainant as part of a phishing scheme and in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to his web site, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent’s web site or location.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed the Complainant must satisfy the Panel 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 was registered and is being used in bad faith.

There are no exceptional circumstances within paragraph 5(f) of the Rules to prevent the Panel from determining the dispute based upon the Complaint, notwithstanding the failure of the Respondent to file a Response. Under paragraph 14(a) of the Rules in the event of such a “default” the Panel is still required “to proceed with a decision on the complaint”, whilst under paragraph 14(b) it “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. This dispute resolution procedure is accepted by the domain name registrant as a condition of registration.

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 trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the CAUDALIE 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, the acronym “br” for Brazil 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.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

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.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized 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

page 4

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.

Indeed, none of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy can be inferred from the file.

Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity and purportedly illegal activity here, claimed as applicable to this case: impersonation/passing off, or other types of fraud can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel notes that the evidence is clear: the disputed domain name reproduced the Complainant’s CAUDALIE trademark, the Respondent’s website reproduced logos, photos and charts which belonged to the Complainant and furthermore the Respondent website established as its business address the Complainant’s in Brazil.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In the present case, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark in terms that matches with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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.

The Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website.

Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not
prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having
reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s
trademark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this
case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under
the Policy.

The Panel also finds that the Respondent knew or should have known about the Complainant and its trademarks due to its reputation and distinctiveness when registering the disputed domain name. This previous knowledge strengthens the conclusion that the registration was in bad faith.

In addition, the Respondent’s illegitimate activity misrepresenting the Complainant give no room for a registration or use of the disputed domain name in good faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy.

page 5

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 <caudaliebr.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Manuel Moreno-Torres/
Manuel Moreno-Torres
Sole Panelist
Date: July 9, 2025