URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE v. TURKTICARET.Net
Claim Number: FA1706001734990
DOMAIN NAME
<schneiderelectric.istanbul>
PARTIES
Complainant: SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC SE of RUEIL-MALMAISON, France | |
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Anne Morin of Angers, France
|
Respondent: TURKTICARET.Net BEKTAS TARiMOGLU of Bursa, II, TR | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality | |
Registrars: Reg2C.com Inc. |
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. | |
Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: June 8, 2017 | |
Commencement: June 9, 2017 | |
Default Date: June 26, 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"). |
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
Findings of Fact: Complainant has provided the following initial explanatory text, in his Complaint: “A. The domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights The domain name is identical to the International trademark "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" n°715395, registered on March 15th, 1999. The trademark "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" is also registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse (TMCH) since November 26th, 2013. The wording "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" is related only with the Complainant. The new gTLD ".ISTANBUL" is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. Indeed, the term "ISTANBUL" is generic compared with the distinctive expression "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC", and therefore does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the trademark "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC". See WIPO case N° D20141590 Fiskars Corporation v. Whois Privacy Service / James Taverner <fiskars.tools> (The addition of merely generic, descriptive, or geographical wording to a trade mark in a domain name is normally insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity and that panels have usually found the incorporated trade mark to constitute the dominant or principal component of the domain name). B. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name and he is not related in any way to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent. The Respondent is not known as the domain name. Past panels have held that a Respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name if the WHOIS information was not similar to the disputed domain name. See for instance: NAF - FA699652 - Braun Corp. v. Loney NAF - FA139720 - Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi Furthermore, the website in relation with the disputed domain name <schneiderelectric.istanbul> is in registrar parking page since its registration. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has not developed a demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the Respondent could not have used the domain name without infringing the Complainant’s intellectual property rights on the trademark SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC. C. The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith The domain name is identical to the well-known trademark "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC". Furthermore, the trademark is registered in the TMCH since November 26th, 2013. The Registrant is not known within the word "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC" and has no legitimate use in respect with the domain name. Moreover, the website in relation with the disputed domain name <schneiderelectric.istanbul> is in registrar parking page since its registration. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has registered the domain name only in order to prevent the Complainant to register it and to reflect its trademark in a domain name. This is considered as blocking registration. Thus, the Complainant contends that respondent has registered the domain name in bad faith.” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) the Domain Name’s website screenshot; (2) the trademark record (WIPO); and (3) TM Clearinghouse registration. Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that he owns the trademark “SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC” (WIPO). The Domain Name “schneiderelectric.istanbul” reproduces this trademark and is identical. Moreover, the new gTLD “ISTANBUL” does not reduce the similarity with the trademark. The term "ISTANBUL" is generic compared with the distinctive expression "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC", and therefore does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion with the trademark "SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC". Therefore, the registered Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds valid registration/rights, which is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use his trademark.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. Passive possession of identical Domain Name consisting of protected word marks and without any manifest proof of purpose towards commercial benefit, can't represent a good faith use under overall circumstances presented in this case. 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:
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:
|
Mr. Tomáš Abelovský Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page