URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
JCDECAUX SA v. farrokh mahmoudzadeh
Claim Number: FA1602001659937
DOMAIN NAME
<jcdecaux.company>
<jcdecaux.graphics>
<jcdecaux.life>
PARTIES
| Complainant: JCDECAUX SA of PLAISIR, France | |
|
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Laurent Becker of Angers, France
|
| Respondent: farrokh mahmoudzadeh of richfield, MN, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Silver Avenue, LLC,Over Madison, LLC,Trixy Oaks, LLC | |
| Registrars: realtime register B.V |
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. | |
| Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: February 8, 2016 | |
| Commencement: February 8, 2016 | |
| Default Date: February 23, 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"). |
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: The Complainant stated that the disputed domain names are identical with the international trademark “JC DECAUX” (WIPO no. 803987) of Complainant. The Complainant also asserted that the addition of the new gTLD “.COMPANY”, “.GRAPHICS”, “.LIFE” are not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The Complainant also claimed that the extension “.COMPANY” refers to Companies as the Complainant; the extension “.GRAPHICS” refers to the Complainant’s activity who known in advertising; and the extension “.LIFE” dedicates a community from discussing hobbies and events. The Complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain names and the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Respondent provided no response to the complaint. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain names are identical to the word mark “JC DECAUX” for which the Complainant holds valid international registration and that is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “JC DECAUX” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “JC DECAUX” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain names.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant’s “JC DECAUX” trademark is registered before TMCH. When Respondent attempted to register the three domain names that are at issue in this dispute, he would have received a warning notice from the TMCH with each one, as part of its Trademark Claims service. Despite having received this notice, Respondent proceeded with his registration of each of the Domain Names, fully aware that his registrations conflicted with Complainant’s JC DECAUX trademark registration. Moreover, the Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with active websites. Passive inactivity with respect to a domain name is considered to be in bad faith. Passive holding of a domain is even more likely to be considered in bad faith when Respondent’s registration of the domain also prevents the mark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, as is the case here. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in 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:
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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page