LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH v WhoIs Privacy Service

WIPO Case No. D2022-2691

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH v. WhoIs Privacy Service,
Private by Design, LLC / Privacy Guardian, See PrivacyGuardian.org

Case No. D2022-2691

1. The Parties

The Complainant is LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH, Germany, represented by

Jonas Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH, Germany.

The Respondent is WhoIs Privacy Service, Private by Design, LLC, United States of America

(“United States”) / Privacy Guardian, See PrivacyGuardian.org, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <lr-health-beauty.systems> is registered with Porkbun LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2022.

On July 22, 2022, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 2022, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. On August 2, 2022, the Center requested a clarification by the Registrar, to which the Registrar responded the same day. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 2, 2022, 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 amendment to the Complaint on August 3, 2022.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to 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 the due date for Response was August 25, 2022. The Respondent did not submit any response.

Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2022.

page 2

The Center appointed Assen Alexiev as the sole panelist in this matter on September 14, 2022. 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 was established in 1985. It is a European direct sales enterprise that distributes German health and beauty products and has thousands of independent business partners worldwide.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign “LR” (the “LR trademark”):

− the German trademark LR with registration No. 2079005, registered on September 26, 1994, for goods and

services in International Classes 3, 14 and 25; and

− the German trademark LR with registration No. 302013032593, registered on July 18, 2013, for goods and

services in International Classes 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 35, 36,

38, 41, 42, 44 and 45.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations for the sign “LR HEALTH & BEAUTY

SYSTEMS” (the “LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademark”):

− the German trademark LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS with registration No. 30644164, registered on

November 24, 2006, for goods and services in International Classes 3, 5, 8, 9, 14, 18, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29, 30,

35, 38, 42, 45; and

− the International trademark LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS with registration No. 939691, registered on

January 15, 2007, for goods and services in International Classes 3, 5, 9, 14, 18, 21, 25, 29, 30, 35, 38 and

42.

The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <lrworld.com> registered on March 21, 2000, which

resolves to the Complainant’s main website.

The disputed domain name was registered on June 17, 2019. It resolves to a website that is very similar to

an older version of the Complainant’s website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its LR trademark and is identical to its LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademark and to its company name, as it includes all their word elements. The Complainant notes that the only differences between the disputed domain name and

the Complainant’s trademarks are that the “&” sign and the figurative design elements of the Complainant’s

trademarks are missing, and that the element “systems” is added by using the identical “.systems” top level

domain (“TLD”). According to the Complainant, these minor differences are not sufficient to avoid the

likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. The

Complainant adds that the website at the disputed domain name is an exact copy of an earlier version of the

Complainant’s website in several language versions. The Complainant concludes that the use of the

disputed domain name by the Respondent, regardless of whether it is used for a website or for
correspondence, would set up a false assumption in Internet users that its owner is the Complainant or is
connected to the Complainant.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, as it has not used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or

to tarnish the Complainant’s trademarks. Rather, the Respondent has connected it to an exact copy of an

page 3

earlier version of the Complainant’s website featuring outdated information. The Complainant adds that it

has not permitted anyone to use its company name or its LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS
trademarks to apply for the registration of the disputed domain name or to operate a website that is an exact

copy of an earlier version of its own website.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

According to it, the disputed domain name was registered to disrupt the Complainant’s business, to sell it to

the Complainant, or to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website at the disputed domain

name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademarks as to the source. The

Complainant notes that the fact that the website at the disputed domain name is an exact copy of an earlier version of its own website indicates not only trademark violations, but also violations of regulations regarding the information about the operator provided on the website.

The Complainant maintains that its business is disrupted by the registration and use of the disputed domain name, because the information on the website is outdated and creates an unprofessional impression, and lacks information that is required by law such as the information regarding the operator of the website and other legal notices, which puts the Complainant at risk to be subject to complaints or demands from authorities and competition or consumer organizations. The Complainant notes that the contact form on the website does not forward the messages received to the Complainant, thereby misleading the consumers and creating the impression that the Complainant does not react to messages. The Complainant concludes that there is a high risk that it would thus miss business opportunities and lose consumer satisfaction.

B. Respondent

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

6. Discussion and Findings

Pursuant to the Policy, paragraph 4(a), the Complainants must prove each of the following to justify the transfer of the disputed domain name:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the

Complainants have rights;

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

(iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

In this case, the Center has employed the required measures to achieve actual notice of the Complaint to the Respondent, in compliance with the Rules, paragraph 2(a), and the Respondent was given a fair opportunity to present its case.

By the Rules, paragraph 5(c)(i), it is expected of a respondent to: “[r]espond specifically to the statements

and allegations contained in the complaint and include any and all bases for the Respondent (domain-name

holder) to retain registration and use of the disputed domain name […].”

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has provided evidence that it is the owner of the LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY

SYSTEMS trademarks and has thus established its rights in this trademark for the purposes of the Policy.

As noted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name incorporates all word elements of the LR and LR

HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademarks with the addition of hyphens between “lr”, “health” and “beauty”,

while their “systems” element is reproduced through the use of the “.systems” TLD, so there is also a dot

between “beauty” and “systems” in the disputed domain name. These minor differences do not preclude a

finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. See

page 4

section 1.7 and 1.11.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third

Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).

In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusing similar to the LR and LR

HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademarks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

While the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, UDRP panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the

often-impossible 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. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to
have satisfied the second element. See section 2.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, because it has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademarks or to register the disputed domain name, and has not used it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant points out that the Respondent operates a website at the disputed domain name that appears as belonging to the Complainant in an attempt to confuse and attract Internet users to it. The Complainant has thus established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not submitted a Response or advanced any argument in its defense, and has not disputed the contentions of the Complainant.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS

trademarks and to the Complainant’s company name, and as shown by the evidence submitted by the

Complainant and not disputed by the Respondent, it resolves to a website that is indeed very similar, if not

identical, to an older version of the Complainant’s own website, features the Complainant’s trademarks and

company name, and describes the activities of the Complainant. This website may indeed lead visitors to

believe that it is the official website of the Complainant itself.

The above leads the Panel to the conclusion that the Respondent knew the Complainant and targeted it
when registering the disputed domain name, and has registered and used it in an attempt to impersonate the
Complainant and deceive Internet users that the website at the disputed domain name is operated by the

Complainant and that the services offered on it are offered by the Complainant. This may disrupt the

Complainant’s business or negatively affect its reputation. The Panel does not regard such conduct as

legitimate or giving rise to rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy lists four illustrative alternative circumstances that shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith by a respondent, namely:

“(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily

for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the
complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant,
for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the
domain name; or

page 5

(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service
mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a

pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a

competitor; or

(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain,

Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or

location or of a product or service on your web site or location.”

As discussed above in this decision, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s

LR and LR HEALTH & BEAUTY SYSTEMS trademarks and to the Complainant’s company name. It is being

used for a website replicating an earlier version of the Complainant’s own website without disclosing the lack

of relationship between the Parties. In the circumstances, it appears that the Respondent has targeted the

Complainant in an attempt to unfairly capitalize on the Complainant’s goodwill for commercial gain by

attracting Internet users to the Respondent’s website and deceiving them that they are dealing with the

Complainant itself.

This satisfies the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was 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 <lr-health-beauty.systems> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Assen Alexiev/

Assen Alexiev

Sole Panelist
Date: September 28, 2022