SEPHORA v. eChannel SEO Internetservices Inh. Dennis Bedeniikovic et al.

SEPHORA v. eChannel SEO Internetservices Inh. Dennis Bedeniikovic et al.
Claim Number: FA1503001608139

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

As stated above, Complainant contends, and provides evidence in support thereof, that it "is the owner of many trademarks ‘SEPHORA’ around the world, including SEPHORA, European Community Trademark Registration No. 000788398 in Classes 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38, 41, and 42 filed on March 31, 1998 and SEPHORA, United States Registration No. 2431967 in class 3, 35, 38 and 42 filed on November 21, 1997 and has used the SEPHORA mark for decades." It is obvious that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to the SEPHORA trademark. Registrant has not disputed the foregoing. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complaint contends that “[t]here is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name or has made a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name”; that “[t]here is no legal or business relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent which would give rise to any license, permission or authorization for the Respondent to use the Domain Name”; that “Complainant has never consented to the registration or use of the Domain Name by the Respondent”; and that “there is no explicable legitimate reason as to why the Respondent chose the Domain Name, other than to trade on and confuse internet users into thinking that the Domain Name is authorized by Complainant.” Registrant has not disputed the foregoing. Accordingly, the Panel finds that 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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant contends that “[t]he Domain Name was registered by the Respondent on November 5, 2014. By this time, the Complainant had long established rights in the SEPHORA Marks for many years and had acquired a substantial reputation through their worldwide use of SEPHORA Marks”; that “[u]pon information and belief, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to link to Complainant’s legitimate website, which is used to further its scheme to cause confusion”; and that “it is impossible to conceive of any good faith use of the Domain Name.” Registrant has not disputed the foregoing. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

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:

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:

sephora.discount

	Complainant Submitted: March 5, 2015
	Commencement: March 5, 2015
	Default Date: March 20, 2015
	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").

	Complainant: SEPHORA Claire Combot of Boulogne Billancourt, France

	Respondent: eChannel SEO Internetservices Inh. Dennis Bedeniikovic Dennis Bedenikovic of Aschaffenburg, II, DE

	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.
	Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner

	Registries: Holly Hill, LLC
	Registrars: 1API