Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant prevailed on element (i) in that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use. The record makes clear that “the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use,” and the registration is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Examiner cannot find any relevant point to defend it in this regard in the Response. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Respondent contends that as a well-established and a registered company in Australia which has been in operation since January 2013, it seeks to use the primary .digital to brand in the space, and to approach fraud and communication in a branded and secure sense. It intends to build its brand by selling retailers gift cards and delivering them as digital MMS messages, as well as offering retailers additional opportunity to push promotional MMS offerings. It continues to contend that it has the right to protect its own interests and take every possible step to create recognizable and secure communications platform and that it has the right to sell products and purchase products that are available for sale. However, Examiner observes that it will generally be very difficult for a respondent who is a reseller or distributor to establish rights or legitimate interests where that respondent has no relevant trade mark rights and without the authority of the complainant has used a domain name identical to the complainant's trademark (i.e., <trademark.tld>). A reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name if its use meets certain requirements. These requirements normally include the actual offering of goods and services at issue, the use of the site to sell only the trademarked goods, and the site's accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant's relationship with the trademark holder. See paragraph 2.3, WIPO Overview 2.0. In the circumstances that Respondent has not used the disputed domain name and currently making no bona fide offering of goods and services but simply explains its plan to use the disputed domain name for fair use in terms of security sense, Examiner is not in a position to accept Respondent’s allegations to recognize Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the second element of the URS.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Complainant contends that i) Complainant’s mark is a renowned international trademark, and thus bad faith is admitted where Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s mark at the time of registration, ii) Respondent is inactively holding the disputed domain name, and iii) offering a domain name for sale is evidence of bad faith. It also contends that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, primarily for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration from the fact reflective of its passive holding of the disputed domain name. Respondent defends that it did not register the disputed domain name for the purpose of selling it. It asserts that it will never advertise a website using the disputed domain name and therefore could not be accused of using the registration to confuse the market. It believes the creation of secure architecture and communication vehicle will be of benefit to Complainant. Examiner finds that bad faith on the part of registrant is not always recognized simply because Complainant’s mark is renowned. It may be inferred when taking other circumstances into consideration. Although Complainant is asserting that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in bad faith primarily for the purpose of selling it for valuable consideration, Examiner cannot find any clear and convincing evidence supporting its allegations other than the fact of inactive use of the disputed domain name. Passive holding can be considered as an indication of bad faith. However, in case of the disputed domain name, it has been less than four (4) months since its registration on June 19, 2015. As such, the period of passive holding is too short to infer Respondent’s bad faith especially in the circumstances that Respondent strongly denies Complainant’s allegation by demonstrating its intent-to-fair use. Accordingly, Complainant has failed to satisfy the third element of the URS.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

1. tagheuer.digital