URS FINAL DETERMINATION
LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. du biao et al.
Claim Number: FA1508001634734
DOMAIN NAME
<lanxess.wang>
PARTIES
Complainant: LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH of Köln, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: Partridge & Garcia P.C.
Mark V.B. Partridge of Chicago, IL, United States of America
|
Respondent: du biao du biao of xin xiang, HA, II, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited | |
Registrars: Chengdu west dimension digital |
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. | |
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 24, 2015 | |
Commencement: August 25, 2015 | |
Default Date: September 9, 2015 | |
Default Decision Date: September 10, 2015 | |
Response Date: September 12, 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"). |
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: [OptionalComment] |
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The domain name is identical to Complainant's LANXESS trade mark, registered in the United States of America under registration number 3,154,793, with a date of first use in commerce of October 1, 2004. It is also identical to Complainant's several registrations for the LANXESS trade mark in China. Respondent asserts the domain name represents the Chinese characters for "blue", the chemical element "xenon" and "colour", and that the domain represents the meaning of "blue sky and sea". Such submissions are irrelevant to the first limb under the URS procedure. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has made no use of the domain name. Respondent has failed to submit any evidence to establish any legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name. The Examiner finds Respondent's assertions regarding the meaning of the registered domain name unconvincing. Respondent asserts legitimate rights purely on the basis of its registration (absent any use) of the registered domain name. Registration alone of a domain name identical with Complainant's registered word mark cannot possibly give rise to any legitimate right or interest.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent contends it has the right to register and use the registered domain name and, as there has been no use made to date, there is no evidence of bad faith. This submission is misconceived. Complainant asserts its LANXESS trade mark is well-known in the chemicals industry, including in China, where Complainant operates, where Complainant has several registrations for the Trade Mark, and where Respondent is based. Respondent does not deny knowledge of Complainant and of the LANXESS trade mark when domain name was registered. In all the circumstances, this is a clear cut case of bad faith registration and use. 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. Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
Respondent asserts, purely on the basis of a bare assertion that there are a large number of domain names containing Complainant's LANXESS mark that have not been registered by Complainant, and Respondent has the right to exploit the commercial value of the registered domain name, the proceeding is an abuse of the proceedings and contains material falsehoods. The Examiner has no hesitation in rejecting these groundless assertions.
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:
|
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page