Gianvito Rossi S.R.L. Unipersonale v. di san fang et al.
Claim Number: FA1603001666982
Complainant: Gianvito Rossi S.R.L. Unipersonale of San Mauro Pascoli (FC), Italy.
Complainant Representative: Howson & Howson LLP of Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, United States of America.
Respondent: di san fang of ao men ao men, MO, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .PW Registry; First Registry Limited; XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 22, 2016
Commencement: March 28, 2016
Default Date: April 12, 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.
Complainant is a world leader in the high fashion women’s shoes industry and Complainant’s brand and trademarks are well known in the high fashion shoes industry. (See home page of Complainant’s web site www.gianvitorossi.com.)
The Complainant owns the domain name GIANVITOROSSI.COM.
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.
Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2] 3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as:
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: Identical and/or Confusingly Similar - Finding for Complainant
Complainant is the owner of the mark GIANVITO ROSSI, registered worldwide, including U.S. Reg. No. 3,619,465, with the registration date of May 12, 2009.
The disputed domain names comprise the Complainant’s mark in full with the additions of the words “CHEAP”, “SHOES”, “BOOTS”, "SALES”, “DISCOUNT”, or “LADIES” to the beginning or ending of Complainant’s worldwide registered trademark, GIANVITO ROSSI and the various top level domains.
The goods/services identified in Complainant’s trademark registrations include
“footwear” and retail, wholesale, and online services related to footwear.
Respondent’s website is directed to the sale of footwear for women and, in
many of the websites, uses Complainant’s exact styling of the mark
GIANVITO ROSSI.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names <cheapgianvitorossi.win><discountgianvitorossi.pw><gianvitorossiboots.win>
<gianvitorossishoes.xyz><ladiesgianvitorossi.pw><salesgianvitorossi.xyz> are confusingly similar to the GIANVITO ROSSI mark pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
Determined: Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name - Finding for Complainant
The Complainant submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain names are used to direct to a website displaying the Complainant’s mark and offering footwear for sale. The Complainant has not given any permission to the Respondent to use the GIANVITO ROSSI trademark.
The Respondent failed to submit a response and has not provided any explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain names.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
Determined: The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith - Finding for Complainant
URS 1.2.6.3. provides that a Panel may find a domain name was registered and used in bad faith also if the following circumstances are demonstrated:
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.
The Complainant has satisfied URS 1.2.6.3 (d) since the Respondent is attracting for commercial gain, internet users to a web site under the disputed domain names, showing the Complainant's well-known mark and selling competing products. Thus, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of the Respondent’s web site.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
The Examiner further finds the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above. Complainant is reminded of URS Procedure 11 when making future filings.
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: April 13, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page