Moncler S.P.A. v. Trani Johanna
Claim Number: FA1701001713264
Complainant: Moncler S.P.A. of Milano, Italy.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Trani Johanna of Shanghai, Fujian, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSpace Inc.; DotStore Inc.; Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 19, 2017
Commencement: January 20, 2017
Default Date: February 6, 2017
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.
Complainant has provided clear and convincing evidence that it has rights in the trade mark MONCLER inter alia through its U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 803,943, registered February 15, 1966 for use with clothing.
Each of the disputed domain names are identical to (moncler.christmas, moncler.space) or confusingly similar to (monclervip.store) Complainant’s MONCLER mark.
Complainant has made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. In such circumstances the burden of production shifts to Respondent who has failed to respond. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any demonstrable preparations to use any of the domains in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; the Whois records show that Registrant is known as “Trani Johanna” and not by the domain names or any similar name; and on the balance of probabilities Respondent is using the disputed domain names to market counterfeit goods.
Complainant has made out a clear and convincing case that Respondent is using the disputed domain names without Complainant’s permission, to resolve to websites that purport to sell MONCLER clothing but which Complainant believes to be counterfeit because they use Complainant’s photographs without permission; some products bearing MONCLER trademark are not actually manufactured or distributed by Complainant; and consumers have complained to Complainant that they have received counterfeit products after placing orders on these websites.
On the evidence, by registering and using disputed domain names to resolve to websites selling counterfeits, Respondent has created a “likelihood of confusion”
Furthermore, registration of three very similar domain names in issue in this case is indicative of a “pattern” of bad faith registration by Respondent.
On the balance of probabilities this Panel finds that Respondent is using the disputed domain names in bad faith to market counterfeit goods which use is not legitimate, noncommercial or fair.
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:
<moncler.christmas>
<moncler.space>
<monclervip.store>
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: February 06, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page