URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

LAFUMA S.A v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.

Claim Number: FA2112001976528

 

DOMAIN NAME

<lafumaoutlets.club>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  LAFUMA S.A of ANNECY LE VIEUX, France.

Complainant Representative: 

Complainant Representative: Germain Maureau of LYON, France.

 

Respondent:  Zhou Fei of Qing Dao Shi, Shandong, International, CN.

Respondent Representative:  None

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC

Registrars:  GoDaddy.com, LLC

 

EXAMINER

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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: December 10, 2021

Commencement: December 13, 2021   

Default Date: December 28, 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

URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires that, to obtain an order that a domain name be suspended, Complainant must make out a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements:

 

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 asserts that it holds a valid international registration for the trademark LAFUMA, identified as Registry No. 497261, registered September 11, 1985, since renewed, with expiration to be effective September 11, 2025, in international classifications 18 (trunks and suitcases, etc.), 20 (furniture for camping, garden and outdoors, etc.), 25 (sports clothing, etc.) and 28 (games, toys, gymnastic articles, etc.), and that the mark is in current use.  Respondent does not deny any of this.

 

The relevant WHOIS information shows that Respondent registered the domain name <lafumaoutlets.club> on June 11, 2021. 

 

The domain name incorporates Complainant’s LAFUMA mark in its entirety, with only the addition of the generic term “outlets,” which purports to describe an aspect of Complainant’s business and implies discount pricing, plus the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.club.”

 

The gTLD appended to Complainant’s mark to complete the domain name does not affect our analysis because all domain names are required to have a gTLD or other TLD.

 

The domain name is thus confusingly similar to Complainant’s LAFUMA mark.   

 

Registrant’s Rights or Interests

 

Complainant alleges that there is no business affiliation between Respondent and Complainant, and that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its LAFUMA mark.  Complainant further contends that the website resolving from the <lafumaoutlets.club> domain name is employed to sell counterfeit goods appearing to be those of Complainant, but at deep discount prices, in anticipation of the 2021 holiday selling season.  Respondent denies none of this.

 

There is, as well, nothing in the record suggesting that Respondent has been commonly known by the challenged domain name.

 

On these undenied facts, we find that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  

 

Registrant’s Bad Faith

 

Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations establishing that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the challenged domain name are also pertinent to 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 it is plain from the record before us that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the LAFUMA mark when it registered a domain name confusingly similar to that mark shortly before the winter holidays, which strongly suggests that it was registered, and is now being used, in bad faith. 

 

Accordingly, a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the undenied facts in the record.   

 

FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

Our review of the record before us discloses no evidence suggesting that the Complaint was brought in abuse of this proceeding or that it contains any material falsehood.

 

DETERMINATION

Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we conclude that Complainant has proven prima facie all three required elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence.  We therefore ORDER that the registration of the domain name <lafumaoutlets.club> be SUSPENDED for the duration of its term.

 

                                               

Terry F. Peppard, Examiner

Dated:  December 31, 2021

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page