URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. du biao
Claim Number: FA1508001634734


DOMAIN NAME

<lanxess.wang>


PARTIES


   Complainant: LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH of Köln, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: Partridge & Garcia P.C. Mark V.B. Partridge of Chicago, IL, United States of America

   Respondent: du biao du biao of xin xiang, HA, II, cn
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited
   Registrars: Chengdu west dimension digital

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.
   Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: August 24, 2015
   Commencement: August 25, 2015
   Default Date: September 9, 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: [OptionalComment]

  

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 


The registered domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark LANXESS.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to establish any legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. Respondent has made no use of 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 


Respondent was on notice of Complainant's rights in Complainant's trade mark LANXESS via the Trademark Clearinghouse, prior to Respondent's registration of the domain name. Complainant uses its LANXESS mark worldwide, including in China, where Respondent is based. In all the circumstances, including the fact the domain name is identical to Complainant's mark, the Examiner finds that Respondent's registration and passive use of the domain name amounts to 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:


  1. 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:

  1. lanxess.wang

 

Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Examiner
Dated: September 10, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page