Europcar International SASU v. Tim Petrac
Claim Number: FA1602001659646
Complainant: Europcar International SASU of Voisins le Bretonneux, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Taylor Wessing LLP of London, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Tim Petrac of Köln, International, DE.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NetCologne Gesellschaft für Telekommunikation mbH
Registrars: 1&1 Internet SE
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.
Petter Rindforth, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 5, 2016
Commencement: February 5, 2016
Default Date: February 22, 2016
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.
Findings of Fact:
The Complainant is the owner the following Community Trademark (CTM) registrations:
No. 003993789 EUROPCAR (word), registered on August 4, 2006 for goods and services in Intl Classes 12, 36 and 39.
No. 004016002 EUROPCAR (figurative), registered on December 21, 2005 October 30, 2012 for services in Intl Class 35 Classes 12, 35, 36 and 39.
The Complainant has provided evidence of use by screenshots from the Complainant’s websites www.europecar.com and www.europecar.de.
Legal Findings and Conclusion:
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.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The Complainant met the standard sets out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since the Complainant has proved its right to the valid Community Trademark registration No. 003993789 EUROPCAR (word). Further, the Complainant has proved that the said trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from the Complainant’s websites.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <europcar> as the added top-level domain – being a required element of every domain name – is generally irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar and in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark EUROPCAR.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
The Respondent does not have any rights in <europcar.koeln> as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark EUROPCAR, nor is the Respondent commonly known by <europcar.koeln>.
As EUROPCAR is a distinctive and well known trademark, the Examiner also draw the conclusion that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent cannot have any legitimate interests in registering and using <europcar.koeln>.
To summarize, the Examiner find that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <europcar.koeln>.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
According to the URS Procedure 1.2.6.3, examples of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:
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.
Although the Examiner agrees with the Complainant that the Respondent most likely has registered the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark in mind, there is nothing else in the case that clearly shows that <europcar.koeln> is used in bad faith.
In the absence of clear and convincing evidence, the Examiner cannot draw the conclusion that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<europcar.koeln>
Petter Rindforth, Examiner
Dated: February 25, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page