ROLEX SA v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0142540160 et al.
Claim Number: FA1605001675316
Complainant: ROLEX SA of Genève 26, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative: DOMGATE of Grasse, France.
Respondent: Valery Konstantinov / Private person of Moscow, Moscow, RU.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Top Level Domain Holdings Limited
Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.
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.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 17, 2016
Commencement: May 18, 2016
Default Date: June 2, 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.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <rolex.work>. There is one Complainant and one (or more) Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <rolex.work> on February 16, 2015.
Complainant, ROLEX SA, is the owner of trademark Rolex, amongst other trademarks, which it has registered in various jurisdictions since at least 1962, including Russia, where the Respondent is located. The Complainant has operated as the Rolex brand for over a century.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
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.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is a well established mark, in use for over one hundred years with international use and recognition as a luxury brand.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name, whether by responding to this Complaint or vis-a-vis any content on their website.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that the following factors when taken together stand as sufficient evidence of bad faith:
- Communication with the Respondent detailing Respondent’s negotiation and interest to sell the domain at a premium.
- The domain gives an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and would cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship. (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856)
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<rolex.work>
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: June 07, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page