URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Kingfisher France v. et al.
Claim Number: FA1805001788899
DOMAIN NAME
<castorama.site>
PARTIES
Complainant: Kingfisher France of Templemars, France | |
Complainant Representative: Cabinet Plasseraud
Stéphane Millet of Paris Cedex 09, France
|
Respondent: of USA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc. | |
Registrars: Go Daddy, 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. | |
Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: May 29, 2018 | |
Commencement: May 29, 2018 | |
Default Date: June 13, 2018 | |
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, Kingfisher France, is the largest home improvement retailer in Europe with over 1000 stores under various retail brands, among which CASTORAMA. Especially in Russia, through its licensee, Castorama Rus, the Complainant operates 21 CASTORAMA stores (with over 3000 employees) and an on-line shop, available at www.castorama.ru. The Complainant’s activity is protected through numerous CASTORAMA (both in Latin and Cyrillic characters) trademarks registrations all over the world, including Russia. The distinctive and well-known trademark CASTORAMA has also been registered in the Trademark ClearingHouse. Complainant submits screenshot of the webpage <castorama.site> which directs toward a Cyrillicdrafted internet site which claims to be “the website of the CASTORAMA store”. Complainant states that the webpage displays the CASTORAMA logo and contains business information on the Complainant (especially on its Russian stores) and on home improvement products (each time displaying them in impersonating the complainant). Complainant points out that such a use disrupts the Complainant’s business: the Respondent is impersonating the Complainant whereas same has no control on the disputed domain name and on the content of the related website. Complainant also suffers a loss of money (Internet users visiting the disputed website do not go on its genuine online store and also find irrelevant information, such as a catalogue which has been identified through a Google Image search as dating 2015). Besides, the disputed website has unfinished and incomplete looks, what tarnishes the Complainant’s image. Complainant asserts that Respondant’s bad faith is all the more obvious, as the fact that it has registered and is using the disputed domain having the Complainant’s mark in mind because the related website reproduces the well known CASTORAMA logo and refers to the “Kingfisher” company. In addition, as the CASTORAMA trademark has been registered and verified in the TMCH before the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent has been informed of the existence of complainant’s rights prior to the final validation of his registration. Furthermore, the disputed website contains a contact form and the <castorama.site> domain is associated with a MX server. The Complainant points out that this means that the disputed domain name is used in a way intended to collect personal data and send e-mails by impersonating the Complainant. Consequently, <castorama.site> is also intentionally used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source of its website. |
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 [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant 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:
|
Vali Sakellarides Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page