NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM S.A. v. Benoit Menetrieux
Claim Number: FA1410001583084


DOMAIN NAME

<marieclaire.international>


PARTIES


   Complainant: MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM S.A. Geneviève RAFFINI of Issy-les-Moulineaux, France
  
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

   Respondent: Benoit Menetrieux of Paris, II, FR
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Wild Way, LLC
   Registrars: Key-Systems LLC

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.
   Ms. Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 3, 2014
   Commencement: October 3, 2014
   Default Date: October 20, 2014
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

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.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant is the owner of the French word trademark “MARIE CLAIRE” no. 17121118, registered on December 16, 1991 for, among others, the goods of class 16 of the Nice Classification (particularly for magazines), and filed on April 29, 2013 in the TrademarkClearingHouse, as evidenced by submitted extracts from the trademark register and the Proof of use issued by the Clearinghouse. The disputed domain name <marieclaire.international> is identical to the registered trademars of Complainant as it incorporates the registered word mark in its entirety. Adding the gTLD “international” increases the likelihood of confusion since Complainant’s magazines are distributed internationally.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent failed to provide any response within the terms provided by the URS procedure, thus did not provide any arguments. Being listed as the registrant under the name Benoit Menetrieux in the WHOIS records, he is not known under the name Marie Claire. In the absence of any arguments to the contrary, based on the submitted evidences and taking into account the fame of the subject trademark, it is resolved that the second element of the policy under URS 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’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 Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The disputed domain name is not in use. However, registration of a domain name incorporating a famous mark by a third party having no right or legitimate interest in it, still blocks access to this domain by the trademark holder. Previous panels in similar cases reviewed under the UDRP policy found that “passive holding” of a domain name may qualify for bad faith under certain circumstances (see WIPO – D2004-0988 - CBS Inc. v. Nabil Z.aghloul; see also WIPO – DAU2013-0005 – Cobb International Limited v. Cobb Australia & New Zealand (Pty) Ltd.). Thus, Complainant has made a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the three elements under URS 1.2.6


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


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. marieclaire.international

 

Ms. Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: October 23, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page