MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM v. Pearson Technology Centre et al.
Claim Number: FA1504001613428
Complainant: MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM of ISSY-LESMOULINEAUX, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Pearson Technology Centre of GuangZhou, GuangDong, International, CN.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
Registrars: NameCheap, 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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 8, 2015
Commencement: April 8, 2015
Default Date: April 23, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant, MARIE CLAIRE ALBUM S.A., is a well-known international monthly magazine for women that was first published in France in 1937. Today, MARIE CLAIRE publishes 89 editions around the world, present in 35 countries and in 18 languages. There are 53 million copies sold yearly worldwide.
The trademark MARIE CLAIRE is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a vast reputation in connection with women magazine.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for MARIE CLAIRE formative marks. For example, French trademark no. 1712118, registered December 16, 1991. This is further supported by the fact that MARIE CLAIRE mark is registered with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse.
Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent;
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2] ;
3. The domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online 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.
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
The Complainant is the owner of French trademark no. 1712118 - MARIE CLAIRE from December 16, 1991 bearing first date of use of 1937.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".website".
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no evidence that Respondent is known as MARIE CLAIRE. Respondent does not engage in any legitimate business or commerce under and is not commonly known by the name MARIE CLAIRE. Complainant has no business or other connection with Respondent and has not authorized Respondent to register or use its name. The website under the disputed domain name is used with the sole aim to create likelihood of confusion with the complaint’s Italian’s website www.marieclaire.it. The Responded uses the Complaint’s well-known trademarks in the website under the disputed domain name. The website under the disputed domain name has the same typeface, colors cod as the Complaint’s Italian website. Complainant has met its burden to show clear and convincing evidence of cybersquatting. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.
[URS
1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. 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. In view of Complainant's established reputation in the MARIE
CLAIRE mark in the women magazines field, Respondent was aware and deliberately
chose to acquire the disputed domain name so as to present itself as connected
or otherwise affiliated with the Complainant thus unlawfully enjoy from
Complainant's reputation. Respondent received express notice from Trademark
Clearinghouse of Complainant's prior rights and still chose to acquire the
disputed website, which is another proof that Respondent was aware of
Complainant's rights in the trademark and acted in bad faith. Complainant
supplied evidence showing Respondent is using the disputed domain name in bad
faith, using Complainant’s trademark, same type face, creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship,
affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Since Complainant's trademark was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered and the disputed name resolves to a non- active website, the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (b).
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:
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: April 27, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page