LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.

URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1509001637112

DOMAIN NAME

<tagheuer.link>

PARTIES

	Complainant: LVMH SWISS MANUFACTURES SA Marie Wormser of LA-CHAUX-DE-FONDS, Switzerland
	Complainant Representative: DOMAINOO Virginie Poindron of Paris, France

	Respondent: Ajay S. of Carmel, NY, USA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Uniregistry, Corp.
	Registrars: NAMECHEAP

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.
	David J. Steele Esq., as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 11, 2015
	Commencement: September 14, 2015
	Default Date: September 29, 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

Complainant owns numerous valid trademark registrations of national effect for its TAG HEUER mark. Complainant is currently using its TAG HEUER mark as evidenced by the Trademark Clearinghouse validation submitted. The subject domain name, tagheuer.link, is identical to Complainant's famous TAG HEUER mark for the purpose of this matter.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making any bona fide offering of goods or services, or making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Respondent has not submitted any credible evidence that Respondent plans to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, in view of Complainant’s famous trademark, any unprotected commercial use by Respondent of the domain name would violate Complainant’s rights.

[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

The domain name currently resolves to a commercial parking page which is evidenced by the screen shot submitted with the Complaint. This use of the subject domain name supports a finding of bad faith. In addition, because Complainant’s famous trademark is so obviously connected with Complainant, the unprotected commercial use of the subject domain name by Respondent (who has no connection with Complainant or rights to use the domain name) supports a finding of 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.link

David J. Steele Esq.
Examiner
Dated: September 29, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page