NISSAN MOTOR CO., LTD. v. Princesse Avis Co. Ltd. et al.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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.

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

[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.

In its Response, Respondent has submitted as follows: "Deny. A. I did not have any contact with the Complainant prior to this filing; I did not, at any time, made any commercial offer (neither sale, rent nor transferring the domain for a fee) to the Complainant or any of its competitors.B. did not intend to prevent the Trademark holder from reflecting their mark in a corresponding domain name. C. I am not in contact, nor affiliated with any of the Complainant's competition, and my activity is unrelated to the automotive industry. I do not have any intent, neither registered the domain with the intent of disrupting Complainant's business. D. I did not made any use of this domain name prior to this filing, as evidenced by the GoDaddy default page served to Internet users. I am willing to transfer the domain free of charge to the Complainant as a demonstration of my good faith." Having regard to the evidence the Panel finds that Complainant has proved all allegations made under URS 1.2.6. The Panel agrees with the submission of Complainant that Respondent must have been notified through Trade Mark Clearing House system of NISSAN's trademark rights in INFINITI when registering <infiniti.repair>, which is famous all over the world. In any event the fame of the INFINITI trademark enables the Panel to draw the inference that in view of Respondent’s registration and retention of the disputed domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Moreover, the panel notes the final submission of Respondent that it is willing to transfer the domain free of charge to the Complainant as a demonstration of his good faith That submission is tantamount to an admission by Respondent that it realises it has no entitlement to the domain name, that Complainant has established its claim and that the domain name should be suspended.

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

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:

infiniti.repair

	Complainant Submitted: December 4, 2014
	Commencement: December 5, 2014
	Response Date: December 5, 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").

	Respondent: Princesse Avis Co. Ltd. Raphael PREVOST of PARASSY, Cher, II, France

	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.
	Neil Anthony Brown, as Examiner

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

	Registries: Lone Sunset, LLC
	Registrars: Godaddy LLC