Boucheron Holding SAS v. lincongmin
Claim Number: FA1601001656658
Complainant: Boucheron Holding SAS of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative: INSIDERS of Paris, France.
Respondent: lincongmin of Zhangzhoushi, Fujian, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited
Registrars: eName Technology Co., Ltd.
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: January 15, 2016
Commencement: January 19, 2016
Default Date: February 3, 2016
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, Boucheron Holding SAS, is a French company in the business of development, manufacturing and marketing of jewelries, bridal, watches, and fragrances. The Complainant has been using the BOUCHERON mark as its house mark at least as early as 1893 in the jewelry industry. The Complainant has been using the BOUCHERON mark worldwide, including in China where the Respondent is based. The Complainant promotes its products under the BOUCHERON mark on the website boucheron.com and sells them in physical boutiques in several countries, including China.
Complainant is the owner of the mark – BOUCHERON, worldwide for many years, including International. Reg. No. 924846 – BOUCHERON (word mark) with the registration date of December 13, 2006.
According to the Complainant, the domain boucheron.wang is confusingly similar to the registered trademark since it contains the Complainant's BOUCHERON trademark in its entirety and with the additional gTLD ".wang".
Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 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(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as:
Since its purchase in October 2015, the Registrant did not operate a website under the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name effectively and deliberately creates confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and diverts traffic from its official website <boucheron.com>. The Respondent has put himself in a perfect position to exploit the Complainant's popularity and renown for the Respondent's own gain.
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 is the owner of the mark – BOUCHERON, worldwide for many years, including International. Reg. No. 924846 – BOUCHERON (word mark) with the registration date of December 13, 2006.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".wang".
[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 BOUCHERON. The domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. Complainant has met its burden. 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. 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
Since Complainant's trademark was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered, the Registrant failed to respond to the Complaint and the disputed name resolves to an inactive 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).
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:
1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
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: February 04, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page