La Redoute v. Alex Newton
Claim Number: FA1508001632533
Complainant: La Redoute of ROUBAIX, France.
Complainant Representative: CSC Digital Brand Services of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America.
Respondent: Alex Newton of London, International, GB.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: August 10, 2015
Commencement: August 10, 2015
Default Date: August 25, 2015
Having reviewed the relevant communication records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure ¶¶ 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.
To obtain an order that a domain name be suspended, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires Complainant to make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional
registration and that it is in current use;
2. Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name;
and
3. The same domain name was registered and is being used by
Respondent in bad faith.
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid United States Patent and Trademark Office registration for the AM.PM trademark, Registry No. 2,568,813, registered May 14, 2002, in International Classes 016 [mail order catalogs featuring furniture and household items] and 020 [furniture and various items of home décor], and that the mark is in current use. Respondent does not dispute any of this. Complainant also shows that Respondent registered the domain name <ampm.xyz> on October 11, 2014, and again, Respondent does not deny this.
Identity or Confusing Similarity
There is no dispute that the <ampm.xyz> domain name is substantively identical to Complainant’s AM.PM mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use. Accordingly, we so find.
Registrant’s Rights or Interests
Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent uses the <ampm.xyz> domain name to resolve to a website that references Complainant in order to confuse unsuspecting Internet users looking for Complainant’s official website, that the same resolving website makes reference to Complainant’s commercial competitors, that the same website disrupts Complainant’s business, and that Respondent may be presumed to obtain pay-per-click revenue from the operation of that website. Moreover, there is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, or that Respondent has received from Complainant permission to use its AM.PM mark.
On these undenied facts, we have no difficulty in finding that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the contested domain name.
Registrant’s Bad Faith
Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <ampm.xyz> domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure ¶ 5.7. Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in Respondent’s registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the discussion above of the absence of any rights to or legitimate interests accruing to the benefit of Respondent from the facts presented in the Complaint filed in this proceeding.
We find from a review of the record that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it does not contain any material falsehoods.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we find that Complainant has proven all three elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence. We therefore Order that the <ampm.xyz> domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: August 25, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page