URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

STADA Arzneimittel AG v. chen jie
Claim Number: FA1603001666814

DOMAIN NAME

<stada.xyz>

PARTIES

	Complainant: STADA Arzneimittel AG of Bad Vilbel, Germany
	Complainant Representative: HARMSEN UTESCHER Dominik Kirschner of Hamburg, Germany

	Respondent: chen jie chen jie of Dong Guan Shi, GD, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
	Registrars: CHENGDU WEST DIMENSION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

EXAMINER

	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.
	Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: March 22, 2016
	Commencement: March 22, 2016
	Default Date: April 6, 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").

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Respondents: No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant, STADA Arzneimittel AG (“Arzneimittel” being German for “pharmaceuticals”), is one of the world leaders in pharmaceuticals. It operates its own gTLD <.stada>. The Complainant is the owner of the STADA word mark registered in Germany on April 27, 1954 (No. 56708).

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 disputed domain name, <stada.xyz> is identical to the Complainant's STADA trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.xyz” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid trademark (German trademark registration No. 56708). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting prove of use from the Trademark Clearinghouse.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

According to the Complainant’s, the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with it, and there has been no bona fide use of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no intellectual property rights in name “Stada” nor it offers any services under this name. In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.

[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 disputed domain name was registered long after the STADA trademark (1954) which is commonly known all over the word. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the Complainant’s rights. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain constitute bad faith. Moreover, the Complainant proved that the Respondent is the owner of over 4.600 domains, including well known third parties’ trademarks it has no legitimate rights or interests to. Such a pattern of conduct is indicative for bad faith. The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ 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 name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

stada.xyz

Piotr Nowaczyk
Examiner
Dated: April 11, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page