Veolia Environnement SA v. zhang yin
Claim Number: FA1612001705750
Complainant: Veolia Environnement SA of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: IP TWINS of Paris, France.
Respondent: zhang yin of xns, hbs, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, 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.
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 5, 2016
Commencement: December 6, 2016
Default Date: December 21, 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.
Procedural Findings:
This complaint and findings relate to the single domain <veolia.club>. No multiple Complainants or Respondents are involved in this proceeding. No domain names are dismissed from this complaint.
Findings of Fact:
The complaint at hand refers to the registration of the domain name <veolia.club> registered by zhang yin being the Respondent in the case.
The Complainant, Veolia Environnement SA, states it is the holding company of Veolia group, 160 years old group, which represents today a total of €24.96 billion in revenue.
Complainant is the holder of the trademarks VEOLIA the earliest of which, according to Complainant’s trademark information, is IR no. 814678 VEOLIA in classes 1, 6, 9, 11, 17, 19, 32, 35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41 and 42 (date of registration is 11.09.2003), also protected in China. Furthermore, Complainant owns U.S. trademark registration no. 3543738 VEOLIA in classes 16, 35, 37, 39, 40 and 42, as well as EUTM no. 0910325 VEOLIA in classes 9, 11, 16, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42 and 44.
According to the Complainant, the domain <veolia.club> is at least confusingly similar with the Complainant’s trademarks “VEOLIA”. The domain name used to direct towards a parking website.
In response to Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter, a Respondent offered a transfer of the domain name for USD1080. As no amicable settlement was found, Complainant initiated an URS.
Complainant contends that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way and has not been authorized by Complainant to use its trademarks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating the said marks.
In its turn, Respondent did not provide a response to the complaint in accordance with the URS rules of procedure.
Based on the foregoing, the Complainant elaborates on the arguments to demonstrate that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 (URS 1.2.6.1.)
The Examiner finds that the domain name <veolia.club> fully incorporates the Complainant’s VEOLIA mark. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the new gTLD “.club” is of no consequence here.
The Examiner finds that the domain name <veolia.club> is identical to the Complainant’s VEOLIA mark under URS 1.2.6.1.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the VEOLIA name as the WHOIS record for the <veolia.club> domain name lists “zhang yin” as the domain name registrant, whereas VEOLIA is known in respect of the Complainant whose corporate name incorporates VEOLIA as well.
It is contemplated from the Complaint that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s VEOLIA mark in a domain name or otherwise.
The domain name used to direct towards a parking website. The use of a domain name in such a way does not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of the domain name. No demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services were presented by the Respondent to the Examiner.
Factoring that the Respondent defaulted to assert defenses to the Complaint to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interest in the domain name, the Examiner finds that the Respondent has not established any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name <veolia.club> under URS 1.2.6.2.
Bad faith registration and use
The domain name <veolia.club> was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Further, the Examiner, in fulfillment of the duty of verifying whether the Complainant has made false claims as alleged by the Respondent, conducted a whois search through the online whois reverse lookup service located at the URL address http://reversewhois.domaintools.com and the search results immediately indicated that zhang yin as the domain names’ registrant is associated with more than 2,500 domain names, whereas leifeng360@foxmail.com, indicated as the Respondent’s contact e-mail, is associated with more than 70 other domains as of February 28, 2016. In the present case, the Examiner considers that holding such a large portfolio of domain names is an indicia of bad faith, particularly considering that, as seen in this case, an identical trademark owned by a third party is involved.
Yet the more, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 11, 2016 long after the Complaint’s mark was first registered and when the mark obtained the high degree of awareness among the public.
This fact and holding the large portfolio of the domain names by the Respondent that there are indicia of cybersquatting. This also supports the finding of bad faith.
The Response does not provide and clear any substantiation of the use of another persons’ trademarks in the domain names in good faith. The content of the website does not support the use of the Complainant’s mark in good faith either, as no information or adverts of the Respondent’s business or its business plans are published onto the conflicting website. At the same time, through misleadingly diverting consumers, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its web site.
Based on the above cumulative circumstances the Examiner finds such behavior to evidence Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under URS 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that the complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
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.
<veolia.club>
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, Examiner
Dated: December 21, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page