BONPOINT v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2004001891184
Complainant: BONPOINT of PARIS, France.
Complainant Representative: Germain Maureau of LYON, France.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. / WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, International, PA.
Respondent Representative: unrepresented.
REGISTRY and REGISTRAR
Registry: DotStore Inc.
Registrar: NameCheap, Inc.
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: April 7, 2020
Commencement: April 8, 2020
Default Date: April 24, 2020
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 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.
1.2.6.1. that 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 evidence shows that Complainant holds a valid international registration which is in use. Further, the Examiner finds that the domain name is legally identical to the trademark and so finds the first element to be established.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
The name of Respondent is concealed by a privacy service. The Panel is unable to determine whether Respondent might be known by the domain name but in the absence of a Response there is no positive indication that is so. There is no evidence Respondent has trademark rights of its own. The evidence is that the domain name has not been used so far and so there is no use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name and that Complainant has established the second element.
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark because the postal address and phone number in the contact information for the disputed domain name are those of the Complainant. Further, the disputed domain redirects traffic to the website <kkstorec.store> from which Respondent conducts an unrelated business. These facts show registration and use in bad faith, either per se, or under that part of the URS Procedure which refers to a respondent using the domain name to intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
Complainant has not established the third element.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
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.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: April 25, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page