Revlon Consumer Products LLC v Host site, 1594451478

WIPO Case No. D2024-3460

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Revlon Consumer Products LLC v. Host site, 1594451478

Case No. D2024-3460

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Revlon Consumer Products LLC, United States of America (“United States”),

represented by Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, United States.

The Respondent is Host site, 1594451478, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <revlonworld.live> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 24, 2024.

On August 26, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in

connection with the disputed domain name. On August 26, 2024, 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 (Registration Private Domains By Proxy, LLC,

DomainsByProxy.com) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication

to the Complainant on August 29, 2024, 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 29, 2024.

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

Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 4, 2024. In accordance with the Rules,

paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 24, 2024. The Respondent sent an email

communication to the Center on September 6, 2024. Accordingly, the Center notified Commencement of

Panel Appointment Process on September 25, 2024.

page 2

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on September 30, 2024.

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 has since 1932 manufactured and sold beauty products under the trademark REVLON.

The Complainant owns many trademark registrations for REVLON such as the following:

- United States Trademark Registration No. 3,035,671, registered on December 27, 2005; and

- United States Trademark Registration No. 1,625,545, registered on December 4, 1990.

The disputed domain name was registered on April 3, 2024, and currently resolves to a parking page with

Pay-Per-Click links for beauty products and services. On the date of filing the Complaint, the disputed

domain name resolved to a website that purported to offer blockchain related services.

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 a trademark or

service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The Complainant’s trademark is fanciful and well known.

The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety only adding to it the

generic word “world”. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.live” does not eliminate the likelihood of

confusion.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain

name. The Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use its trademark and there is no

relationship between the two of them. The Complainant’s use and registration of the trademark predates the

registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent had constructive knowledge of the

Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a

bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain

name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is trying to create an association with the Complainant. The Complainant’s trademark is

well known and provides it with broad rights.

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

The Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark and has no rights or

legitimate interest in it. The Respondent is operating the infringing website which purports to work with

companies to build blockchain business solutions. The Respondent is attempting to divert potential

customers to its website for commercial gain. The Complainant attempted to contact the Respondent

through the information available on the latter’s website but this information was incomplete and the address

does not seem to exist. Eventually, the Complainant sent cease-and-desist letters, which remained

unanswered.

page 3

B. Respondent

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

September 6, 2024, the Respondent stated, “i am sorry to late response i deleted this from godaddy”.

6. Discussion and Findings

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 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, “world”, 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

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.

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

page 4

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 notes that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant’s

trademark as the disputed domain name was registered more than 30 years after the registration of the

Complainant’s trademark.

Panels have consistently found that the mere registration of a domain name that is identical or confusingly

similar to a famous or widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of

bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

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.

Noting the well-known nature of the Complainant’s REVLON trademark, the Panel finds that by using the

disputed domain name, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet

users to its websites or other online location by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s

mark. Such use constitutes bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

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 <revlonworld.live> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Nayiri Boghossian/

Nayiri Boghossian

Sole Panelist

Date: October 14, 2024