Salomon SAS v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1711001759876
Complainant: Salomon SAS of Epagny Metz-Tessy, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: INSIDERS of Paris, France.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, 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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 27, 2017
Commencement: November 27, 2017
Default Date: December 12, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
PROCEDURAL FINDINGS:
No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.
FINDINGS OF FACTS:
The Complainant is a sport equipment manufacturing company that originates from France.
The Complainant is the owner of several SALOMON international trademarks registered and used in many countries. It owns inter alia:
- SALOMON international trademark, registered on July 19, 1984, registration No. 489108 for goods and services in classes: 6,8,9,12,16,18,34;
- SALOMON international trademark, registered on March 22, 1988, registration No. 526127 for goods and services in classes: 1,2,6,7,8,9,12,16,18,25,28,35,36,4.
The Complainant presented the Proof of Use Declaration.
The Complainant contends that <salomonshop.online> is confusingly similar to the SALOMON mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.
The Respondent did not present any contentions regarding the merits of the case.
The Domain Name was registered on October 24, 2017. The website that the Domain Name resolves to displays the Complainants’ products and its logo.
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
The Domain Name, <salomonshop.online> is confusingly similar to the Complainant's SALOMON mark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. The addition of the word “online” does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant’s mark.
It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.online” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825).
The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
According to the Complainant’s, the Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized Respondent to use the SALOMON mark or register the Domain Name containing this mark.
In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
The Domain Name was registered on October 24, 2017, whereas the SALOMON mark was years before. Moreover, the SALOMON mark is commonly known all over the word. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the Complainant’s rights while registering the Domain Name.
The fact that the website the Domain Name resolves to displays the Complainant’s products and logos is a further proof of bad faith.
The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.
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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, Examiner
Dated: December 13, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page