Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for L'Oreal mark throughout the world, including in the USA, which is evidenced by the submitted print-out of records from the USPTO, showing that the registration is live and in use. The well-known character of the mark raises no questions as it has been present on the cosmetics market throughout the world for decades, being associated not only with luxury products and brands, but also with budget products, making it accessible to wider range of consumers. The disputed domain name incorporates the registered and well-known trademark “L’Oreal” in its entirety with the only difference being in the lack of an apostrophe, which is due to the restriction of use of this sign in domain names. The Examiner finds that the present domain name is identical with the registered mark of Complainant. Thus, the first element of the policy under URS 1.2.6.1 is met.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent is not and can not be known under the name L’Oreal since the latter was registered and extensively used worldwide long before the registration of the disputed domain name. In the response, Respondent did not provide any material evidence showing bona fide use of this name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent failed to provide any material defense on any of the three elements, including against bad faith. The reference to a German girl name is not of great help (especially, taking into account how extremely rare the name (a version of Lorelei) is today in both Germany, and the rest of Europe). The question that one has to ask under present circumstances is why would someone choose a name identical to a well-known trademark, particularly the one used for luxury goods, and then register a “.luxury” domain, which makes it really confusing? Even if the registered domain is not in use, the fact that it is registered by a third party having no right or legitimate interest in it, still blocks access to this domain by a trademark holder. Moreover, under the mentioned circumstances, registration of such a domain name would qualify for an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s website. Thus, the Examiner finds that the third element of the policy under URS 1.2.6.3. is met.

There is no genuine issue of material fact as all three standards have been satisfied by clear and convincing evidence submitted by Complainant, while Respondent failed to provide any material defense.

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

1. loreal.luxury