URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


BAL DU MOULIN ROUGE v. Privacy Protection et al.
Claim Number: FA2209002010746


DOMAIN NAME

<moulinrouge.xyz>


PARTIES


   Complainant: BAL DU MOULIN ROUGE BAL DU MOULIN ROUGE of PARIS, France
  
Complainant Representative: CASALONGA Caroline Casalonga of PARIS, France

   Respondent: Privacy Protection Privacy Protection of Chicago, IL, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: Sav.com, LLC

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: September 2, 2022
   Commencement: September 6, 2022
   Default Date: September 21, 2022
   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 Complainant does not allege multiple Complainants.
      Multiple Respondents: The Complainant does not allege multiple Respondents.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant is created in 1889 and the owner of the Moulin Rouge show which is well known and recognized worldwide. With the 125 years’ experience, the Moulin Rouge is the oldest and one of the most famous cabarets in the world. In addition, the Complainant holds owns a European trademark registration dated June 8th 2009 under the name “Moulin Rouge”. The Complainant claimed that the “moulinrouge.xyz” domain name used by the Respondent is enhanced by the well-known character of the trademark “MOULIN ROUGE” in the field of cabaret. The Complainant also asserted that the disputed domain name leads to website indicating that it is sale for sale for $ 1.455. The Complainant also mentioned that the domain name was for sale for $ 888 in November 2021 and now it is increased by the Respondent.

  

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 


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 “MOULIN ROUGE” for which the Complainant holds valid registrations in European Union countries.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant has clearly stated that there is no relationship with the Respondent and no licence, permission nor authorization to use the wording “MOULIN ROUGE” was ever granted to the Respondent. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the the “MOULIN ROUGE” trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. 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.
  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 


It is obvious that by using the domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to take unfair advantage of the efforts and investments made by the Complainant. It is possible to say that the Respondent harms the commercial reputation of the Complainant by reproducing letter by letter the registered “MOULIN ROUGE” trademark of the Complainant. Furthermore, it is clear that such composition could misleadingly divert internet users searching for the Complainant’s official website. Lastly, the website of the Respondent redirects to a webpage indicating that it is for sale for $ 1.544. The fact that the Respondent put the domain name up for sale shows that they have no interest in using the domain name, but trying to earn money by taking advantage of the Complainant in a malicious way.


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. 

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. moulinrouge.xyz

 

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: September 26, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page