Dart Industries Inc. v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1912001874844
Complainant: Dart Industries Inc., of Orlando, Florida, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Data Protected Limited of Ajeltake Island HONGKONG, HK.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED
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.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 12, 2019
Commencement: December 13, 2019
Default Date: December 30, 2019
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 Dart Industries is a subsidiary of Tupperware Brands Corporation. Complainant owns many trademark registrations for the TUPPERWARE mark around the world, including U.S. Registration No. 2,820,832. The mark has been used for more than 60 years on a wide variety of kitchen and household items. The TUPPERWARE mark is registered with the TMCH.
Respondent is not making any use of the disputed domain name, tupperware.luxe.
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. The Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the TUPPERWARE mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in full. The addition of the non-distinctive top-level domain “.luxe” does not avoid a determination that the domain name is identical to the mark in issue. The evidence further establishes that Complainant holds valid national registrations for the TUPPERWARE mark and that the mark is in current use.
2. The Examiner finds that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name. Complainant has never granted any license or other permission to Respondent to use the TUPPERWARE mark, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the TUPPERWARE mark. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name and the domain name is being passively held by Respondent.
3. The Examiner determines that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As noted above, Respondent is not making any use of the disputed domain name and there is no evidence that it intends to do so. Such passive holding is evidence of the requisite bad faith. See Christian Dior Couture v. aris koulaidis, Claim FA1546033. Further, given that the TUPPERWARE mark is registered with the TMCH, Respondent, when it attempted to register tupperware.luxe, would have received a “warning notice” from the TMCH, as part of its Trademark Claims service. Despite having this notice, Respondent proceeded to register the disputed domain name fully aware that the domain name conflicted with Complainant’s rights in the TUPPERWARE mark. Such action further supports a determination that the mark was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
tupperware.luxe
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: December 30, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page