Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The domain names are identical to the International trademark "LEA NATURE" n° 1181010, registered on June 12th 2013. The trademark LEA NATURE is also registered in the TMCH since April 8th, 2014. The addition of the new gTLD ".VIP" and “.TOP” is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain names are identical to the Complainant's trademark “LEA NATURE”. Indeed, the terms "VIP" and “TOP” are generic compared with the distinctive expression "LEA NATURE", and therefore doesn’t eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the trademark "LEA NATURE ". The addition of generic wording to a trademark in a domain name is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity and panels have usually found the incorporated trademark to constitute the dominant component of the disputed domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

According to the Whois of the disputed domain names, the Respondent is "lan qing tian". Thus Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The websites in relation with the disputed domain names inactive, thus Respondent is not making a legitimate use of them. Further Respondent has not developed a demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, Respondent could not have used the domain names without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights on the trademark LEA NATURE. Thus, it appears that Respondent has registered the domain names only in order to prevent Complainant to register it and to reflect its trademark in a domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

It is long-established under the UDRP that a finding of bad faith and registration may be made even if the disputed domain names are not being used. According to paragraph 3.2 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition, “[panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use (e.g., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint having been filed, and the registrant’s concealment of its identity. Panels may draw inferences about whether the domain name was used in bad faith given the circumstances surrounding registration, and vice versa.” The Panel considers that the circumstances of the present case justify a finding of bad faith registration and use, given the nature of the domain names, of Complainant's mark, and of Complainant's business.

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:

1. leanature.top
2. leanature.vip