GRANDS MAGASINS DE LA SAMARITAINE MAISON ERNEST COGNACQ Societe Anonyme v. Mukombo Kalawe et al.

URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

GRANDS MAGASINS DE LA SAMARITAINE MAISON ERNEST COGNACQ Societe Anonyme v. Mukombo Kalawe et al.
Claim Number: FA1503001608773

DOMAIN NAME

<lasamaritaine.paris>

PARTIES

	Complainant: GRANDS MAGASINS DE LA SAMARITAINE MAISON ERNEST COGNACQ Societe Anonyme Marie Wormser of Paris, France
	Complainant Representative: DOMAINOO Joanna Aknin of Paris, France

	Respondent: Mukombo Kalawe of Reading, BRK, II, GB

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: City of Paris
	Registrars: 1&1 iNTERNET AG

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.
	Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: March 10, 2015
	Commencement: March 11, 2015
	Default Date: March 26, 2015
	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: Complainant used to run a large department store in Paris under the name “LA SAMARITAINE”. Complainant is the holder of the French word trademark “LA SAMARITAINE” with registration No. 1525054 and the French word trademark “SAMARITAINE” with registration No. 1525055, both registered since May 10, 1979 in classes 1-45 and duly renewed. Complainant is currently advertising the renovation project of its former SAMARITAINE stores. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on December 2, 2014. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. 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.

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:
  (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

Complainant shows to be the holder of valid national registrations in the SAMARITAINE and LA SAMARITAINE trade marks and that the trade marks are in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <lasamaritaine.paris> is identical to the Complainant’s LA SAMARITAINE trade mark. Therefore, Examiner finds that the first element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.1 has been proven.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered LA SAMARITAINE trade mark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as LA SAMARITAINE or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in LA SAMARITAINE and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.

[URS 1.2.6.3] 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

The passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, the failure of the respondent to respond to the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No. D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name. Respondent failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Rules. It is inconceivable to this Panel that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trade mark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s LA SAMARITAINE trade mark in an extension that refers to the city in which Complainant is based. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

lasamaritaine.paris

Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Examiner
Dated: March 31, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page