Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v. Will Booth et al.
Claim Number: FA1711001760216
Complainant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited of Warwick, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Lewis Silkin LLP of London, United Kingdom.
Respondent: William Booth of Congleton, United Kingdom.
Will Booth of Congleton, International, GB.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: ZA Central Registry NPC trading as Registry.Africa
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.
Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 28, 2017
Commencement: November 29, 2017
Response Date: December 11, 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 an internationally renowned manufacturer of luxury sports cars. It owns over 900 filed trade marks on over 80 registers worldwide, including EUTM registration no 8367815 ASTON MARTIN and US registration 4024407 ASTON MARTIN covering, inter alia, vehicles and parts and fittings for vehicles (class 12) retail services connected with the sale of automobiles and automotive goods (class 35).
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the ASTON MARTIN mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in it.
The Respondent asserts that the disputed domain name was registered with no intent of profit or gain and was bought without knowing the implications that could occur. According to the Respondent, the disputed domain name has never been hosted or linked to a web page. Moreover, the Respondent explains that he requested the Registrar to cancel the disputed domain name.
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's ASTON MARTIN mark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.africa” 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 – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid trademark registration. Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting screenshots from the Complainant’s website (www. astonmartin.com).
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
According to the Complainant’s, the Complainant has neither licensed nor authorized the Respondent to use the ASTON MARTIN mark or register a domain name containing this trademark. The Complainant believes that the Respondent did not make a legitimate use of the disputed domain name as it was passively hold since registered. This assertion is evidenced by the screenshot of <astonmartin.africa>.
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
According to WhoIs database, the disputed domain names was registered on September 24, 2017 whereas the ASTON MARTIN mark is commonly known all around the world for years. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the ASTON MARTIN mark. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith.
The Respondent requested the Registrar to cancel the disputed domain name only after the proceedings were commenced, thus it does not affect the bad faith finding. As there is no confirmation that the disputed domain name was indeed canceled, the Examiner decides to make the determination.
The Examiner that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.
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 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