URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

OSCARO.com v. WhoisGuard, Inc.

Claim Number: FA1905001845225

 

DOMAIN NAME

<oscaro-mon-compte.review>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  OSCARO.com of Paris, France.

Complainant Representative: 

Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.

 

Respondent:  WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama Panama, International, PA.

Respondent Representative:  «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  dot Review Limited

Registrars:  NameCheap, Inc.

 

EXAMINER

The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

 

Eleni Lappa, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: May 29, 2019

Commencement: May 29, 2019   

Default Date: June 13, 2019

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure  Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

 

Complainant owns trademark registration "OSCARO" n° 950157, registered at the WIPO on August 17, 2007 covering several jurisdictions.

 

Respondent appears to have no claimed registered or unregistered rights on the name OSCARO, which is identical to Complaint’s above-referenced trademark rights. Respondent’s registered domain name under review also contains the terms “mon compte” which however qualify as a common, descriptive terms, that offer no per se distinctive element to the domain name under review, in order to sufficiently differentiate it from Complainant’s earlier trademark rights.

 

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

 

1.    That the registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1].

2.    That registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2].

3.    The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as:

By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on­line location, by creating a likelihood of 

confusion with the complainant’smark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliationor endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration <oscaro-mon-compte.review>

 

 

 

 

Eleni Lappa, Examiner

Dated:  June 13, 2019