Manufacture et fabrique de montres et chronomètres Ulysse Nardin Le Locle S.A v. Xu Bai
Claim Number: FA1501001601999
Complainant: Manufacture et fabrique de montres et chronomètres Ulysse Nardin Le Locle S.A of Le Locle, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Dennemeyer & Associates S.A of HOWALD, Luxembourg.
Respondent: Xu Bai of Shenyang, Liaoning, International, China.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
Registrars: Network Solutions, LLC
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.
Honorable John A. Bender as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 27, 2015
Commencement: January 27, 2015
Default Date: February 11, 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.
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.
According to Article 1.2.6.1 of the URS, the domain name <ulyssenardin.club> is identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use, as the evidence reflects. Manufacture et fabrique de montreset chronomètres Ulysse Nardin Le Locle S.A (“ULYSSE NARDIN”), the Complainant, from 1846through the present, has operated as its business an independent and internationally renowned Swiss watchmaker. The evidence reflects Complainant is owner of the trademark ULYSSE NARDIN registered amongst others in Switzerland under Registration2P-302872, and also holds several International trademark registrations. Furthermore, the Complainant ULYSSE NARDIN owns and operates a website incorporating the ULYSSE NARDIN Trademark, for instance <ulysse-nardin.com>.
Respondent registered the domain name <ulyssenardin.club> on October 30th, 2014. It is for these purposes identical to the Complainant´s trademarks, as it wholly incorporates the trademark ULYSSE NARDIN. The addition of the new gTLD “.club” does not dilute the overall impression of the dominant portion of the names “ULYSSE NARDIN” and is therefore irrelevant in the determination of the confusing similarity between the signs. Therefore, the disputed domain name and the Complainants´ Trademark and domain name are identical.
According to Article 1.2.6.2 of the URS, the Registrant has no legitimate Right or Interest in the domain name. First of all, the Registrant has no legitimate right to the name ULYSSE NARDIN which is the name of the Complainant´s Company and is composed of each of the creators’ last name. Furthermore, ULYSSE NARDIN have not licensed or otherwise authorized the Registrant to use its Trademark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the trademark. There is no evidence that the Registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name since the website does not lead to an active website. There is no record of other holders of rights to the name “ULYSSE NARDIN” other than the Complainant in either the Trademark offices or the Registry of Companies. The Respondent´s name does not coincide with the domain name so that no legitimate Right can be recognized.
According to Article 1.2.6.3 of the URS, the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The circumstances of the matter demonstrate that the Registrant registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting their trademark in a corresponding domain name. Indeed, since Respondent’s registration of the domain name, the domain still does not lead to any active website. The Registrant therefore does not show bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no mention that the website will come soon and is under construction. It can be therefore supposed that the Registrant registered the domain name hoping to gain economic benefit from Claimant’s name, whether from illegally competing or from withholding use of Claimant’s use leading to Claimants purchase of the domain name from Respondent. This reflects the requisite bad faith.
DETERMINATION
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.
[ulyssenardin.club]
Honorable John A. Bender, Examiner
Dated: February 11, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page