URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v. Domain Protection Services, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1710001756505
DOMAIN NAME
<astonmartin.global>
PARTIES
Complainant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited of Gaydon, Gaydon, United Kingdom | |
Complainant Representative: Aaron B Newell of London, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: Domain Protection Services, Inc. Whois Agent of Denver, CO, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot Global Domain Registry Limited | |
Registrars: Name.com LLC |
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. | |
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: October 31, 2017 | |
Commencement: November 1, 2017 | |
Default Date: November 16, 2017 | |
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, Aston Martin Lagonda Limited, is a British car manufacturer which sells luxury sports cars and grand tourers globally. Complainant is the holder of inter alia the United States word mark "ASTON MARTIN" used in relation to a range of products and services related to Complainant's business as a luxury car manufacturer. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <astonmartin.global> on January 3, 2016. The disputed domain name resolves to a standard holding page displaying sponsored links related to "coupé cars". |
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 The record makes clear that the Complainant "holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use". The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s ASTON MARTIN registered trademark. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.GLOBAL” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). As the registered domain name is identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered ASTON MARTIN trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in ASTON MARTIN and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The use of a domain name to host a parked page comprising sponsored links does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services where such links compete with or capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the complainant’s mark. Respondent does not contest the arguments of Complainant. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as it resolves to a standard holding page displaying sponsored links. This indicates that the domain name is used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's ASTON MARTIN trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. Complainant is subsequently also prevented from reflecting its trademark in the corresponding disputed domain name. It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s ASTON MARTIN registered trademark. Given the well-known and non-descriptive character of Complainant's ASTON MARTIN trademark, Respondent must have had Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the distinctive character of the Complainant’s ASTON MARTIN trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Additionally, the use of a privacy service by Respondent further indicates that Respondent has purposely intended to avoid being notified of a UDRP proceeding filed against it, which further supports an inference of bad faith. Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven. 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:
|
Flip Jan Claude Petillion Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page