Association Francaise contre les myopathies v. Marvell Maynor et al.
Claim Number: FA1501001598229




   Complainant: Association Francaise contre les myopathies of Evry, France
Complainant Representative: Nameshield Laurent Becker of Angers, France

   Respondent: Mr. Maynor of Hillside, United States of America


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars:, 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.
   Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: January 6, 2015
   Commencement: January 7, 2015
   Response Date: January 7, 2015
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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:  
      Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
      Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that TELETHON is a French fund-raising event which takes place the first week-end of December every year with the help of hundreds of thousands of volunteers, millions of participants and lots of artist since 1986. The Complainant also claimed that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark “TELETHON” and the trademark “TELETHON” is registered on January 8th, 1988 with the no. 1604213. The Complainant also asserted that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent replied that; there are 10's of thousands of other websites with the word “TELETHON” in it; moreover and domain names are being sold. The trademark “TELETHON” is a single generic dictionary word like a cat or money. The Complainant wants to take his domain name because their website is just too long and hard to remember. The Respondent accepted that he had links on the domain while it was sitting to be sold like millions of other domain sellers and companies do. The Respondent stated that everyone does not purchase domains to build websites on all the time, if this is the case for domains it should be written in law. The Respondent also stated that his domain name is not illegal or being used to damage a brand or a company and the Complainant company is called AFM-Telethon not Telethon as one word.


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.

[URS] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “TELETHON” for which the Complainant holds valid national and international registrations which are in current use.

[URS] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “TELETHON” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “TELETHON” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.

[URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

According to the Respondent’s statements the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. Besides, the Respondent accepted that he had some commercial links on the website and he would like to sell the domain name to the third parties. In this respect, the Examiner concludes that, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain by registering and using the domain name. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and it being used in bad faith in the sense of of the URS.


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:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 


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:



Ahmet Akguloglu
Dated: January 12, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page