SALOMON S.A.S. v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)
Claim Number: FA1806001794432
Complainant: SALOMON S.A.S. of METZ-TESSY, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Domain Admin / Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
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.
Eleni Lappa, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 29, 2018
Commencement: June 29, 2018
Default Date: July 16, 2018
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.
Complainant owns trademark registration "SALOMON" n° 940740, registered at the WIPO on June 6th 2007 covering several jurisdictions.
Respondent appears to have no claimed registered or unregistered rights on the name SALOMON, which is identical to Complaint’s above-referenced trademark rights. Respondent’s registered domain name under review also contains the name –trail which however qualifies as a common, descriptive term, that offers no per se distinctive element to the domain name under review, in order to sufficiently differentiate it from Complainant’s earlier trademark rights.
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.
1. That the registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1].
2. That registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2].
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as:
By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of
confusion with the complainant’smark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliationor endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
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.
Eleni Lappa, Examiner
Dated: July 16, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page