Boucheron Holding SAS v. Zhang Hong Jie
Claim Number: FA1602001661442
Complainant: Boucheron Holding SAS of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: INSIDERS of Paris, France.
Respondent: Zhang Hong Jie of Beijing, Beijing, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: N/A
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
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.
Complainant submitted: February 18, 2016
Commencement: February 23, 2016
Default Date: March 9, 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.
Findings of Fact: Complainant is active in luxury sector and sells watches, jewellery, and perfumes under the Boucheron brand. Complainant holds trademark registrations for the sign ‘Boucheron’ in various countries, including China. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 7, 2016. The disputed domain name is not redirecting to any active website.
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 at least one valid international registration in the Boucheron trademark and that the trademark is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <boucheron.top> is identical to Complainant’s Boucheron trademark. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.TOP” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). In any event, the new gTLD “.TOP" is generic as compared to the distinctive expression "BOUCHERON" and therefore does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Boucheron trademark. Respondent does not contest this.
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 Boucheron trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as Boucheron or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in Boucheron and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. Respondent does not contest the arguments of Complainant. 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 as it does not resolve to any active website.
It is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to Complainant’s Boucheron trademark.
Complainant provides evidence of the Boucheron trademark’s registration in China and its use on the Complainant’s website. Complainant also states that the Boucheron products are also sold in physical boutiques in China. Given that Respondent resides in China, it is apparent that Respondent had Complainant in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Moreover, Examiner finds that, given the distinctive character of the Complainant’s ‘Boucheron’ trademark, it is difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by Respondent.
Respondent did not file any response to contest the above. 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.
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:
boucheron.top
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: March 14, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page