G7 v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2102001931424
Complainant: G7 of CLICHY, France.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: yassine yassini of MARRAKECH, MA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: Gandi SAS
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 9, 2021
Commencement: February 9, 2021
Default Date: February 24, 2021
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.
URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires Complainant to make out 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 registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to
a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use;
2. Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name;
and
3. The same domain name was registered and is being used by
Respondent in bad faith.
Identity or Confusing Similarity
In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid registration for the
trademark TAXIS G7, which is on file with the European Union Intellectual Property Office (“EUIPO”) as Registry No. 008445091, registered January 12, 2010, with an expiry date of July 6, 2029, in Nice classes 9 [apparatus for controlling radiotelephones, etc.], 12 [vehicles for locomotion, etc.], 35 [advertising, etc.], 37 [motor vehicle maintenance and repair services, etc.], 38 [telecommunications, etc.] and 39 [escorting of travelers and transport of passengers, etc.], and that the mark is in current use.
The relevant WHOIS information shows that Respondent registered the challenged <centrale-g7.taxi> domain name on December 5, 2020.
Both elements of the TAXIS G7 mark are incorporated in the domain name in full, with only their order of appearance reversed and the addition of a hyphen and a period, plus the generic term “centrale,” which, translated from French, may be taken to mean a “communications exchange,” and thus as a reference to a core aspect of Complainant’s business.
The punctuation marks added to Complainant’s trademark in forming the domain name are of no consequence to our analysis because they do not affect the meaning of the result or its phonetic qualities.
The <centrale-g7.taxi> domain name is therefore confusingly similar to Complainant’s TAXIS G7 mark.
Registrant’s Rights or Interests
There is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent has any affiliation with Complainant, and Complainant denies that any association exists between them. Moreover, Complainant asserts, without objection from Respondent, that it has not authorized Respondent to use its TAXIS G7 mark, whether in a domain name or otherwise. There is likewise nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent has been commonly known by the <centrale-g7.taxi> domain name, and Complainant asserts that it has not been so known.
Complainant also asserts that the website resolving from the contested domain name purports to offer taxi transportation services in competition with the business of Complainant and thus to profit from the confusion thus caused among Internet users as to the possibility of an affiliation between Complainant and Respondent. On these undenied facts, we find that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the contested domain name.
Registrant’s Bad Faith
Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <centrale-g7.taxi> domain name are also pertinent to a resolution of the question whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. See URS Procedure¶5.7. To this can be added that Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the TAXIS G7 mark when it registered the disputed domain name, which assertion Respondent does not contest.
Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the undenied facts set out above.
Our review of the record discloses no evidence suggesting that the Complaint was brought in abuse of this proceeding or that it contains any material falsehoods.
Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we find that Complainant has proven all three elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence. We therefore Order that the <centrale-g7.taxi> domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.
Terry F. Peppard, Examiner
Dated: February 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page