URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


ROSET SAS v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2108001960779


DOMAIN NAME

<ligneroset.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: ROSET SAS of BRIORD, France
  
Complainant Representative: Germain Maureau of LYON, France

   Respondent: Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik, Capital Region, II, IS
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   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.
   Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: August 26, 2021
   Commencement: August 27, 2021
   Default Date: September 13, 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").

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: N/A
      Multiple Respondents: N/A

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant, ROSET SAS, is a French company which designs, manufactures, and distributes modern furniture since 1860. LIGNE ROSET has been used by the Complainant as its house-brand for decades. ROSET SAS has over 200 stores and more than 1,000 retails distributors worldwide. The Complainant owns several domestic and globally registered trademarks composed of the verbal elements LIGNE ROSET with broad and longstanding use for furniture. The Respondents domain name <ligneroset> is identical or, at the very least, highly similar to Complainant's marks. The disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. Respondent has registered the domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s trademark rights, and is trying to impersonate it.

  

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:
  (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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant owns several trademarks composed of the verbal elements LIGNE ROSET. The domain name <ligneroset.club> includes the Complainant’s mark in its entirety. The only difference is the gTLD "club" which does not prevent the finding of confusing similarity. Indeed, it is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as .com, .org or in this case .club, does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar, being a required element of every domain name. Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant notes that the registrant information is unknown, as the Respondent did not reveal his identity. Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. There is no business affiliation between the Parties, nor any permission or license given to the Respondent by the Complainant to use LIGNE ROSET and its trademarks in a domain name or on a website. Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent is in violation of URS 1.2.6.3. (c) (d) The disputed domain name seems merely registered in order to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website. Indeed, the domain name is displaying the official website of the Complainant. Actually, the source code of <ligneroset.club> is displaying a direct link to Complainants LIGNE ROSET website. Moreover, the domain name is currently configured to receive and send emails, such configuration can easily be used for phishing. Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

There was no evidence presented of the Complaint being abusive or containing material falsehoods nor was any patently observable.


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:

  1. ligneroset.club

 

Darryl C. Wilson
Examiner
Dated: September 15, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page