Genzyme Corporation v. Domain et al.
Claim Number: FA1510001640539
Complainant: Genzyme Corporation of Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Marchais Associes of Paris, France.
Respondent: Domain of New York, Alabama, US.
Respondent Representative: None Identified
«cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 2, 2015
Commencement: October 2, 2015
Default Date: October 19, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum 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.
No multiple complainants or multiple respondents here, including other domain names, require dismissal.
Although the Respondent 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.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR:
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure.
Complainant, an American Biotechnology company and third largest in the world in sales, produces an enzyme product marketed as a prescription drug. Complainant is an international pharmaceutical company with sales in 2014 in more than 65 locations making products for an international market of 90 countries and proved its rights to the mark by valid registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, Registration No. 1859429 covering “enzymatic prescription drugs” for rare genetic, endocrine and cardiovascular diseases. Complainant produced assertions and documents to show that the trademark is in current use. See Complaint, Page. 2.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <genzyme>, the added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the descriptive addition “xyz” being irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark. The additions in this case do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected <genzyme> mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS:
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure.
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by registering/purchasing the domain name containing another’s mark and suggesting it even could offer products or services under that mark, given Complainant’s product line. One presumes this is done for commercial gain seeking to benefit from whatever goodwill attaches to Complainant’s mark. Further, Respondent produced neither plan nor expenditures for development to support legitimate interests. Respondent passively holds the domain name to attract Internet users seeking Complainant and its services for Respondent’s own gain without making bona fide use or plans for such use. See Complaint, Page 2.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE:
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
Further, Respondent offers no explanation in the instant case in which Respondent is in default, to excuse the blatant attempt to disrupt Complainant’s business by preventing Complainant trademark holder or service mark holder from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, See Complaint, page 2,
The Examiner accordingly finds that such conduct supports findings of bad faith registration and use. Respondent registered and used or passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith. Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that NO evidence suggests that Complainant engaged in ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant 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:
<genzyme.xyz>
Honorable Carolyn M. Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: October 21, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page