NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Association Francaise contre les myopathies v. Marvell Maynor et al.
Claim Number: FA1501001598229
DOMAIN NAME
<telethon.club>
PARTIES
| 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 and REGISTRARS
| Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC | |
| Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc. |
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. | |
| Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| 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"). |
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
| 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 telethon.com and telethon.net 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 http://www.afm-telethon.com 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 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: 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 1.2.6.2] 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 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 1.2.6.3(d) of the URS. 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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page