Deciem Beauty Group Inc. successfully recovered the domains theordinarys.top and theordinarys.beauty from respondent 王 士飞. The WIPO panel found the domains were used to impersonate the skin care brand for commercial gain, ordering their immediate transfer.
Case Snapshot
| Case Number | D2025-3943 |
|---|---|
| Complainant | Deciem Beauty Group Inc. |
| Respondent | 王 士飞 |
| Disputed Domain | theordinarys.top |
| Threat Tactic | Typo Domains |
| Decision Date | 2025-12-09 |
| Panelist | José Ignacio San Martín Santamaría |
| Outcome | Transfer |
| Official Source | https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2025-3943 |
Reputational and Commercial Threats via Targeted Brand Impersonation
Deciem Beauty Group Inc. faces a direct threat to its global reputation and consumer trust due to the impersonation tactics employed by the Respondent. By operating websites under the trade name "Theordinarybeauty" via the domains theordinarys.top and theordinarys.beauty, the Respondent intentionally created a false impression of affiliation or endorsement. In the highly competitive skincare and beauty market, where Deciem maintains a presence in over 100 countries and holds hundreds of trademark registrations for THE ORDINARY, such unauthorized personas can mislead consumers into sharing data or purchasing products under the belief they are dealing with the official brand. The misappropriation of the Complainant’s trademark to foster this false association disrupts the ability to maintain a consistent brand message and secure customer loyalty across international borders.
The use of typosquatting through the addition of a terminal "s" to the core trademark represents a calculated attempt at traffic diversion for commercial gain. This minor pluralization is a classic tactic designed to capture users who make slight typographical errors when searching for the brand online. By leveraging industry-specific extensions such as ".beauty," the Respondent exploited the commercial context of the skin care sector to attract Internet users. The WIPO panelist specifically found that this behavior was aimed at disrupting Deciem’s business and attracting users for profit by creating a likelihood of confusion. For IP professionals, this case highlights how subtle variations in domain strings are utilized to siphon off high-value traffic, leading to potential revenue loss and the dilution of the primary THE ORDINARY mark.
Furthermore, the Respondent’s use of a privacy service to mask their identity during the registration process through Dynadot Inc. reflects a bad faith effort to evade accountability. This lack of transparency, combined with the failure to provide a substantive response to the UDRP complaint, confirms the absence of any bona fide offering of goods or services. The loss of commercial control over these trademark-specific digital assets forced Deciem to engage in formal dispute resolution to prevent the continued exploitation of its intellectual property. The panel’s order to transfer the domains underscores the necessity of proactive enforcement to protect the integrity of the digital marketplace from actors who seek to monetize consumer confusion.
Legal Reasoning: Confusing Similarity, Lack of Rights, and Bad Faith Impersonation
The Panel’s analysis of confusing similarity centered on the Respondent’s incorporation of the THE ORDINARY trademark in its entirety within the disputed domain names. The addition of the single letter “s” to the registered mark in theordinarys.top and theordinarys.beauty was deemed insufficient to distinguish the domains from the Complainant’s established rights. Given Deciem Beauty Group Inc.’s global presence and its extensive portfolio—including European Union and United States trademark registrations dating back to 2016 and 2017—the Panel found that the domains were clearly designed to capitalize on the recognizable identity of the skin care brand through classic typosquatting.
Regarding the second element of the UDRP Policy, the Panel determined that the Respondent lacked any rights or legitimate interests. The evidence provided by the Complainant established that the Respondent was not commonly known by the disputed names and had never received authorization to use the THE ORDINARY mark. Furthermore, the Panel observed that the Respondent’s use of the domains did not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the activity was characterized as a misappropriation of the Complainant’s trademark and copyrighted works, designed specifically to mislead consumers by creating a false impression of an official association that did not exist.
The finding of bad faith was supported by the Respondent’s active attempt to impersonate the brand for commercial gain. By adopting the trade name “Theordinarybeauty” on the associated website, the Respondent sought to divert internet traffic through the creation of a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks. This tactic of corporate impersonation, combined with the use of a privacy service to shield the registrant’s identity from the outset, provided clear evidence of intent to disrupt the Complainant’s business operations. The Panel concluded that the registration and subsequent use were aimed at attracting users by exploiting the reputation of a global leader in the beauty industry.
Strategy Breakdown: Comprehensive Trademark Documentation and Impersonation Evidence
Deciem Beauty Group Inc. secured the transfer of the disputed domains by providing a robust evidentiary foundation of its global trademark rights for THE ORDINARY. By documenting registrations in the European Union from 2016 and the United States from 2017, the Complainant established its brand’s longevity and international reach across 100 countries. This comprehensive documentation allowed the Complainant to successfully argue that the disputed domains, theordinarys.top and theordinarys.beauty, were confusingly similar to its protected marks. The strategy emphasized that the mere addition of the letter "s" at the end of the mark is a classic typosquatting tactic that is legally insufficient to distinguish a domain from a complainant’s trademark. This foundational proof of rights directly led to the panel’s finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP.
The Complainant further solidified its case by presenting specific evidence of bad faith through the Respondent’s active impersonation tactics. The Respondent utilized the name "Theordinarybeauty" on the website associated with the domains, which the panelist identified as a deliberate attempt to create a false impression of affiliation or endorsement for commercial gain. This evidence of deceptive branding was critical in proving that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests and was actively seeking to divert traffic by confusing the Complainant’s established customer base. Additionally, Deciem’s legal team demonstrated procedural diligence by providing a clarification requested by the Panel on November 26, 2025. This responsiveness, contrasted with the Respondent’s total failure to submit a substantive observation, reinforced the persuasive nature of the Complaint and facilitated the final decision to order the transfer of both domain names.
Practical Recommendations
- Proactively monitor and consider defensive registrations for pluralized versions of core trademarks (e.g., ‘BrandS.tld’), as panels consistently find that the mere addition of an ‘s’ does not prevent confusing similarity.
- Include screenshots and archives of site headers or trade names used on respondent websites, such as ‘Theordinarybeauty’, to prove that the respondent is intentionally impersonating the brand for commercial gain.
- Extend brand protection monitoring to include industry-specific gTLDs like ‘.beauty’ and high-risk TLDs like ‘.top’ which are frequently used for low-cost typosquatting and traffic diversion.
- Utilize the UDRP process to unmask registrants hiding behind privacy services; as seen in this case, the disclosure of the actual registrant often provides the necessary link to establish bad faith registration.
- Maintain an updated portfolio of global trademark registrations to demonstrate established rights across multiple jurisdictions, which simplifies the ‘first element’ proof in UDRP proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Why did the UDRP panel determine that the domains ‘theordinarys.top’ and ‘theordinarys.beauty’ were confusingly similar to the complainant’s brand?
The panel found that the disputed domains incorporate the ‘THE ORDINARY’ trademark in its entirety, with only the addition of the letter ‘s’. This minor modification is insufficient to distinguish the domains from Deciem Beauty Group’s registered trademark.
How did the respondent attempt to impersonate Deciem Beauty Group Inc. through these domain names?
The respondent adopted the trade name ‘Theordinarybeauty’ on the associated websites. This was a deliberate tactic to lead consumers to believe the sites were officially affiliated with or endorsed by the complainant, thereby facilitating traffic diversion for commercial gain.
What evidence confirmed that the respondent acted in bad faith?
Bad faith was proven by the respondent’s use of the trademark to create a false impression of association, coupled with the intent to disrupt Deciem Beauty Group’s business and attract internet users for commercial purposes. Furthermore, the respondent failed to provide a substantive response to the allegations during the proceeding.
What was the practical outcome for Deciem Beauty Group Inc. regarding these unauthorized domains?
The WIPO panel ruled in favor of the complainant, ordering the immediate transfer of both ‘theordinarys.top’ and ‘theordinarys.beauty’ to Deciem Beauty Group Inc. to prevent further brand dilution and consumer confusion.
Recovering Look-alike Domains
The Deciem Beauty Group case highlights how minor variations like ‘theordinarys’ are used to mimic brands and deceive customers. If your brand is facing similar typosquatting, we can help you assess your UDRP eligibility and regain control of your digital assets.
This case note is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice.
