URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
COMUTO v. REDACTED REDACTED
Claim Number: FA2008001908627
DOMAIN NAME
<blablacar.africa>
PARTIES
Complainant: COMUTO of Paris, France | |
Complainant Representative: Nameshield
Enora Millocheau of Angers, France
|
Respondent: Jose antonio moron Aguilar of Tetouan, Tetouan, II, Morocco | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: ZA Central Registry NPC trading as Registry.Africa | |
Registrars: Namecheap, 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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 17, 2020 | |
Commencement: August 20, 2020 | |
Default Date: September 4, 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"). |
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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark BLABLACAR n°3885498, registered on December 30th, 2011. The Complainant asserted that the trademark is also registered in the TMCH since October 28th, 2014. The Complainant also claimed that the addition of the new gTLD .AFRICA is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark BLABLACAR. The Complainant declared that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name. The Complainant claimed that by registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent creates a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the disputed domain name. The Complainant claimed that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent provided no 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 It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark BLABLACAR for which the Complainant holds valid registrations and that are in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the BLABLACAR trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the BLABLACAR trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. Besides, the Respondent has proceeded to register and use the domain name in order to attract intentional commercial gain from internet users by way of parking the page in order to gain pay-per-click revenue. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. 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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page