BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH v. xia men yin si bao hu fu wu you xian gong si
Claim Number: FA1705001732585
Complainant: BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM INTERNATIONAL GMBH of INGELHEIM, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: xia men yin si bao hu fu wu you xian gong si of xia men shi, fu jian, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: none.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
Registrars: eName Technology Co., Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Gordon Lyons as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 22, 2017
Commencement: May 22, 2017
Default Date: June 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.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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 is 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of International Trademark Regn. No. 1,120,388, registered from April 10, 2012, for the trademark OFEV, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark and merely adds the extension “.club”. It is well established that the top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that is taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is therefore identical to the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 is satisfied.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The evidence is that the disputed domain name resolves to a website with miscellaneous advertising not connected with goods put on the market by Complainant under the trademark.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that he has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the disputed domain name or use the trademark, that he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain name.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 is satisfied.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The trademark is an invented word with no dictionary meaning. There is no plausible reason to find registration of the disputed domain name by the Respondent in good faith. Further, the actual use of the domain name is in bad faith. The disputed domain name redirects Internet users to a Chinese language website which appears to offer dating services and/or goods and services wholly unrelated to Complainant’s business under the trademark.
The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Accordingly, URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 is satisfied.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
<ofev.club>
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: June 9, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page