Blogmusik v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1507001629591
Complainant: Blogmusik of Paris, France.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: eNom, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and, to the best of his knowledge, has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 20, 2015
Commencement: July 21, 2015
Default Date: August 5, 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.
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.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[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.
FINDINGS OF FACT
IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant, Blogmusik, provides international online streaming music services on its website at <www.deezer.com>. Complainant owns U.S. and international registrations incorporating the DEEZER mark. Complainant has used the DEEZER mark since 2007. DEEZER is the dominant element of the <deezer.link> domain name. Respondent has merely added the .link domain extension to the DEEZER mark. Accordingly, Complainant has rights in the DEEZER mark by virtue of its numerous registrations and its extensive and continuous worldwide use. Thus, pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1(i), the domain name is confusingly similar to the word mark for which Complainant has rights.
RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Respondent has no rights or interest to the <deezer.link> domain name. The domain name was created on September 24, 2014, subsequent to Complainant’s registration of the Deezer mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Thus, Respondent has no right to the domain name pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH
Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith. The domain name was registered for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Respondent’s website reproduces Complainant’s logo and website appearance and offers downloads of music for a monthly fee. Such disruption constitutes bad faith under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.c. Respondent is also intentionally attempting to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the DEEZER mark. Such use also constitutes bad faith under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
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.
<deezer.link>
Honorable Charles K. McCotter Jr., (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: August 07, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page