Liqwd, Inc. v. Indra Kurniawan / PT. BinkDotz Kingdom
Claim Number: FA1810001813382
Complainant is Liqwd, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jaime Rich Vining of Friedland Vining, P.A., Florida, USA. Respondent is Indra Kurniawan / PT. BinkDotz Kingdom ("Respondent"), Indonesia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <olaplexindonesia.com>, registered with CV. Jogjacamp.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 24, 2018; the Forum received payment on October 24, 2018.
On October 24, 2018, CV. Jogjacamp confirmed by email to the Forum that the <olaplexindonesia.com> domain name is registered with CV. Jogjacamp and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. CV. Jogjacamp has verified that Respondent is bound by the CV. Jogjacamp registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").
On October 25, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 14, 2018 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@olaplexindonesia.com. Also on October 25, 2018, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On November 19, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant manufactures, distributes, and sells hair care products. Complainant's products are sold through salons and distributors around the world and on Complainant's website. Complainant has used the OLAPLEX mark in connection with its hair care products since 2014. Complainant owns various trademark registrations for OLAPLEX, including a U.S. trademark registration issued in 2014.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <olaplexindonesia.com> in May 2016. The domain name is being used for a website entitled "Olaplex Indonesia – Insurance For Your Client's Hair." The website prominently features the OLAPLEX mark, and contains what appear to be testimonials from individuals associated with hair salons in the United States. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; that Respondent is not an authorized Indonesia distributor of Complainant's products; and that Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to register or use a domain name incorporating Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <olaplexindonesia.com> is confusingly similar to its OLAPLEX mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Management, Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent's failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) ("In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.").
The disputed domain name <olaplexindonesia.com> incorporates Complainant's registered OLAPLEX trademark, with the addition of the geographic term "Indonesia" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., OSRAM GmbH v. Bapak Benny, Oscar Tunastama, D2018-1298 (WIPO Aug. 15, 2018) (finding <osramindonesia.com> confusingly similar to OSRAM); L'Oréal v. Rampe Purda / Privacy--Protect.org, D2010-0870 (WIPO July 22, 2010) (finding <lorealindonesia.com> confusingly similar to L'OREAL). Accordingly, the Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark.
Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that appears to be designed to deceive Internet users into believing that it is connected to or authorized by Complainant. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., OSRAM GmbH v. Bapak Benny, Oscar Tunastama, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances).
Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] 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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."
Respondent registered and is using a domain name that combines Complainant's registered mark with a geographic term for a website that appears to be designed to deceive Internet users into believing that it is connected to or authorized by Complainant. Absent any alternative explanation from Respondent, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered and is using the domain name to disrupt Complainant's business or to create and profit from confusion with Complainant's mark. See, e.g., OSRAM GmbH v. Bapak Benny, Oscar Tunastama, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances). Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <olaplexindonesia.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: November 21, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page