LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. Eric TOUIZER et al.

URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. Eric TOUIZER et al.
Claim Number: FA1503001608745

DOMAIN NAME

<tagheuer.boutique>

PARTIES

	Complainant: LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA Marie Wormser of La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland
	Complainant Representative: DOMAINOO Joanna Aknin of Paris, France

	Respondent: Eric TOUIZER of JOUARS PONTCHARTRAIN, II, FR

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Over Galley, LLC
	Registrars: OVH SAS

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.
	Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: March 10, 2015
	Commencement: March 10, 2015
	Default Date: March 25, 2015
	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

Findings of Fact: Complainant states that it "is renowned for manufacturing the prestigious high-end TAG HEUER watches, which models and trademarks have gained a substantial reputation around the world"; that it owns various trademark registrations for TAG HEUER as described below; that it is the registrant of a number of domain names containing this trademark, including <tagheuer.com>, <tagheuer.fr>, <tagheuer.org> and <tagheuer.eu>, "which it uses for websites promoting its luxurious watch-making"; and that Registrant "is inactively holding the disputed domain name" but that Registrant's use of the disputed domain name "suggests that it is possible to purchase authentic TAG HEUER products on [Registrant's] website." Registrant states that he is "a great lover of watches and in particular of Tag Heuer Watches"; that "[t]he acquisition of this domain name belongs to my goal to make in the future a website dedicated to the sale of used watches of this brand"; that the disputed domain name is for for "a project for a website dedicated to secondhand watches of the brand"; and that "[t]here is therefore no sense for [Complainant] to claim ownership of this site which does not match the dimension of their business."

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 contends, and provides evidence in support thereof, that it is the owner of various trademark registrations for the mark TAG HEUER (the "TAG HEUER Trademark"), including WIPO Reg. No. 689,200, for use in connection with, inter alia, "horological and chronometric instruments"; that the TAG HEUER Trademark is registered with ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse; and that the disputed domain name "reproduces the trademark TAG HEUER in an identical way." 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

Complainant contends that "the respondent possesses no legitimate rights or interests on such terms and TAG Heuer has not authorized the registration of such a domain name by the respondent." Registrant's statement that he intends to use the disputed domain name "in the future [in connection with] a website dedicated to the sale of used watches of this brand" does not establish any rights or legitimate interests to the disputed domain name. 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 Registrant is "is inactively holding the disputed domain name"; that "inactive holding of a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use"; that, by Registrant's failure to use the disputed domain name, it "may be inferred" that Registrant intends to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. Registrant's statement that he intends to create "a website dedicated to the sale of used watches of this brand" is contrary to Complainant's contention that Registrant desires to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant. Nevertheless, Registrant's statement does not eliminate the possibility of bad faith; indeed, Registrant's intended use of the disputed domain name is likely to cause confusion pursuant to paragraph 1.2.6.3(d). 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:

tagheuer.boutique

Douglas M. Isenberg
Examiner
Dated: March 29, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page