URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Ernsting's family GmbH & Co. KG v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot et al.
Claim Number: FA2507002166307


DOMAIN NAME

   <ernstingse-family.shop>
 <ernstings-family.baby>
 <ernstings-family.vip>
 <ernstings-familyeu.shop>

PARTIES

   Complainant: Ernsting's family GmbH & Co. KG of Coesfeld, Germany
  
Complainant Representative: pm.legal Peter Mueller of Muenchen, Germany

   Respondent: Dynadot Privacy Service / Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

   Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.,XYZ.COM LLC,Registry Services, LLC
   Registrars: Dynadot Inc.,Dynadot LLC,Dynadot 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: July 18, 2025
   Commencement: July 31, 2025
   Default Date: August 15, 2025
   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


   Findings of Fact: The Complainant is a German clothing retail company that has been operating since 1967. The Complainant is the legitimate owner of the "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademarks numbered 001132067 and 015902273 in EUIPO, 1155945 and 306067579 in Germany, and UK00907178759 and UK00909415464 in the United Kingdom. The Complainant has 1925 physical stores and also operates the websites such as www.ernstings-family.com, www.ernstings-family.de and www.ernstings-family.at. The Complainant claimed that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademarks. The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain names and it never granted the Respondent any rights to use the "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademark. The Complainant also underlines that the disputed domain names <ernstings-family.baby> and <ernstings-family.vip> resolve to websites being used as online shops with the Complainant's logo. Therefore, the Respondent tries to deceive internet users into believing that the website belongs to the Complainant which is an indication of bad faith.

  

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 disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant's registered trademark in its entirety, therefore they are confusingly similar to the "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademark for which the Complainant holds valid national and regional registrations, and which is currently in use. Additional elements in the disputed domain names, such as "eu", "se", ".shop", ".baby", and ".vip", are ignored in terms of likelihood of confusion considering their descriptive and generic feature.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant submits that the disputed domain names are registered without authorization and that they did not authorize the Respondent for use of the "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademark. In response, the Respondent did not provide any response or evidence that they have a legitimate interest in the use of the "ERNSTING'S FAMILY" trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain names.


[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 understood that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to the websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's registered trademarks. The disputed domain names resolve to websites posing as online shops that display the Complainant's logo, and it proves that the Respondent intends to deceive internet users for commercial gain by using the reputation of the Complainant's trademark. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain names 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:

  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. ernstingse-family.shop
  2. ernstings-family.baby
  3. ernstings-family.vip
  4. ernstings-familyeu.shop


   Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: August 21, 2025

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page