Marie Wormser v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1504001615002
Complainant: Marie Wormser of LA-CHAUX-DE-FONDS, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative: DOMAINOO of Paris, France.
Respondent: Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot London Domains Limited
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 17, 2015
Commencement: April 17, 2015
Default Date: May 4, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
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.
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is 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 .usURS complaint is filed.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.
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 domain contains Complainant’s TAG HEUER registered trademark and is confusingly similar to the mark. Registrant has no right or interest in the domain name and the domain was registered in bad faith.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: May 07, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page