COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE v. LineasWeb.com et al.
Claim Number: FA1505001618861




   Complainant: COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE of Paris, France
Complainant Representative: Dreyfus & associés Nathalie Dreyfus of Paris, France

   Respondent: LineasWeb.com Francisco Orozco of MONTERREY, NUEVO LEON, II, MX


   Registries: City of Paris
   Registrars: Enom Inc


   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.
   Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: May 12, 2015
   Commencement: May 12, 2015
   Default Date: May 27, 2015
   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.


   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]


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] 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 disputed domain name is <groupedanone.paris>. According to the Complainant, this domain name entirely reproduces the prior trademark DANONE together with the generic term “GROUPE” which is the French translation for “group”. The fact that Danone is commonly known as “Groupe Danone” and that its headquarter is based in Paris clearly creates a risk of confusion, leading internet users to believe that the domain name <groupedanone.paris> is endorsed by the Complainant. Complainant submitted evidence to demonstrate that it is the owner of the trademark DANONE, International Registration No. 849889 in force from October 29, 2004 to October 29, 2024, and also submitted documentation to prove use of the trademark DANONE. The Examiner considers that the requirements of URS are therefore met.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

In this respect, Complainant states the DANONE trademark registration preceded the disputed domain name’s registration; that Respondent is not known by the name “DANONE”, which is in no way affiliated with Complainant, nor it has been authorized or licensed to use the “DANONE” trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark. The Examiner is in agreement with the assertion that the litigious domain name <groupedanone.paris> does reproduce the trademark DANONE, and that the word GROUPE only contributes to associate it with the Complainant since indeed DANONE is generally known as “Groupe Danone”. In addition, the extension “.paris” demonstrates that the Registrant was fully aware of the trademark DANONE when he registered the domain. Moreover, since the trademark DANONE is registered with the Trademark Clearing House, it is a fact that when registering the domain the Registrant must have received a notification with the registered mark’s details, to inform him about a potential conflict. Therefore, going ahead with the registration of the domain evidences no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Moreover, since Respondent has defaulted, there is no evidence to establish any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name in his favor.

[URS] 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 

The registration of a domain name virtually identical to the registered trademark DANONE owned by the Complainant in the gTLD .paris, being Paris the main domicile of Complainant does show that the Respondent knew the Complainant and its trademarks, which are alleged by the Complainant to be well-known, particularly in Mexico. A famous or well-known trademark is the trademark that is known by the general public due to its intense use and longtime presence in the market, and for this reason enjoys a high degree of consumer recognition, due to its widespread reputation or recognition. Famous marks are generally accorded a broader scope of protection, which means that infringement may be easier to establish. In the present case, the relevant part of the disputed domain name consists of the word <groupedanone>, which identically reproduces the registered trademark DANONE owned by the Complainant, and in addition contains the word GROUPE reflects the manner how the Complainant is generally known: DANONE is generally known: “Groupe Danone”. Since the rest of the domain is the top-level domain .paris (which indeed refers to the principal place of business of the Complainant), the Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's famous and well-known trademark DANONE, which due to its recognition merits a special protection. The Examiner therefore finds that considering that DANONE is a well-known trademark, by registering the domain name <groupedanone.paris> Registrant has indeed intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain internet users to Registrant´s web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site. Complainant furthermore explains that, to worsen things, after the sending a cease and desist Letter to the initial owner of the domain, Karla Guajardo, the name of the owner was changed to Francisco Orozco while the address remained identical. The foregoing facts do suggest, beyond doubt, that the Respondent registered the domain in bad faith. All the foregoing circumstances demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant of the domain name <groupedanone.paris>


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. 


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. groupedanone.paris


Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez
Dated: June 1, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page