Moncler S.P.A. v. Ndiaye therese
Claim Number: FA1701001713119
Complainant: Moncler S.P.A. of Milano, Italy.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Ndiaye therese of metz, International, FR.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC; Dot London Domains Limited; DotOnline Inc.; DotSite Inc.; DotStore Inc.; GMO Registry, Inc.; One.com A/S; PROMO Registry; SALE Registry; Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he 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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 19, 2017
Commencement: January 23, 2017
Default Date: February 7, 2017
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 names be suspended for the life of the registrations.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact
Complainant has provided clear and convincing evidence that it has rights in the trade mark MONCLER inter alia through its U.S. Trade Mark Registration No. 803,943, registered February 15, 1966 for use with clothing. Complainant has furthermore provided evidence in the form of a print out of its website that said mark is in current use by Complainant.
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.
Identical or Confusingly Similar [URS1.2.6.1]
Having compared Complainant’s MONCLER mark and the disputed domain names this Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is either identical to or confusingly similar to the MONCLER trademark.
· The gTLD extensions may be ignored for the purpose of comparison.
· The following domain names are identical to the MONCLER mark: <moncler.london>; <moncler.nagoya>; <moncler.one>; <moncler.promo>; <moncler.tokyo>.
· The following domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MONCLER mark as each consists of the MONCLEAR mark in combination with a non-distinctive first element: <lovemoncler.shop>;<lovemoncler.store>; and <tokyomoncler.store>. This Examiner finds that in each case the mark MONCLER is the dominant and distinctive element of the domain name.
· All other domain names in dispute ( which are listed above) are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they each consist of the MONCLER mark as the initial element in combination with the non-distinctive following elements: <2016>; <2016ru>; <2016sp>; <at2016 >; <atde>;<berlin>; <bf>; < blackfriday >; <cybermonday >; <de>; <de2016 >;<deals>;<es>; <fashion>; <german>; <greece>; <israel>; <jackesale>; <jacket>; <jacketxmas>; <japan>; <jp>; <kr>; <madrid>; <maya>; <newyork>; <nihon>; <o>; <offers>; <online2016>; <onlineru>; <paris>; <sale>; <saleru>; <saleuk>; <sonline>; <soutlet>; <sp>; <store>; <style>; <superdeals >; <tokyo>; <uk>; <ukstore>; <vip>; <xmas>; <xmas2016>; <xmasstore>. In each case the mark MONCLER is the dominant and distinctive element of the domain name.
Respondents Rights or Legitimate Interest [URS 1.2.6.2]
Complainant has made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain names. In such circumstances the burden of production shifts to Respondent who has failed to respond. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any demonstrable preparations to use any of the domains in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The evidence in fact proves the contrary i.e. that the Respondent is making bad faith use of the domain names to offer competing or counterfeit goods to the public taking advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and trademark; the Whois records show that Registrant is known as “Ndiaye therese”
and not by the domain names or any similar name; and Complainant has made out a prima face case that Respondent is using the disputed domain names to market counterfeit goods.
Bad Faith Registration and Use [URS 1.2.6.3]
Complainant has made out a clear and convincing case that Respondent is using the disputed domain names without Complainant’s permission, to resolve to websites that purport to sell MONCLER branded clothing but which Complainant believes to be counterfeit because they use Complainant’s photographs without permission; some products bearing MONCLER trademark are not actually manufactured or distributed by Complainant; and consumers have complained to Complainant that they have received counterfeit products after placing orders on these websites. In other instances indicated below, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to offer for sale garments and accessories which compete with Complainant’s products and is thereby using the disputed domain names to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and reputation.
Complainant has furnished screenshots of the following websites, downloaded on January 18 and January 19 2017 each of which offer garments similar to and competing with Complainant’s products: http://lovemoncler.shop/; http://lovemoncler.store/; http://moncler2016.store/; http://moncler2016ru.store/; http://monclerat2016.store/; http://moncleratde.shop/; http://moncleratde.store/; http://monclerberlin.shop/; http://monclerbf.shop/; http://monclerbf.store/; http://monclerblackfriday.sale/; http://monclerblackfriday.shop/; http://monclercybermonday.shop/; http://monclerde.store/; http://monclerde2016.shop/; http://moncleres.sale/; http://moncleres.shop/; http://monclerjackesale.shop/; http://monclerjacket.sale/; http://monclerjacket.store/; http://monclerjacketxmas.shop/; http://monclermadrid.shop/; http://moncleroffers.shop/; http://moncleroffers.store/; http://moncleronline2016.shop/; http://moncleronlineru.shop/; http://monclerparis.sale/; http://monclerparis.shop/; http://monclersale.shop/; http://monclersaleru.shop/; http://monclersaleuk.shop/; http://monclersonline.store/; http://monclersoutlet.shop/; http://monclersoutlet.store/; http://monclersp.shop/; http://monclerstore.shop/; http://monclersuperdeals.sale/;http://monclersuperdeals.shop/; http://monclersuperdeals.store/;http://moncleruk.store/; http://monclerukstore.shop/; http://monclervip.sale/;
Complainant has also submitted screenshots of the following websites, downloaded on the same dates, that offer for sale garments which purport to be and are described as MONCLER products: http://www.moncler.blackfriday/; http://moncler.london/; http://moncler.nagoya/; http://moncler.one/; http://moncler.promo/; http://moncler.tokyo/; http://moncler2016sp.store/; http://monclerat.online/; http://monclerat.shop/; http://monclerat.store/; http://monclerblackfriday.store/; http://monclerboxingday.shop/; http://monclercybermonday.sale/; http://monclerdeals.shop/; http://monclerfashion.shop/; http://monclerfashion.store/; http://monclergerman.shop/; http://monclergreece.shop/; http://monclerisrael.store/; http://monclerjacketxmas.store/; http://monclerjapan.shop/; http://monclerjapan.store/; http://monclerjp.shop/; http://monclerjp.store/; http://monclerkr.shop/; http://monclerkr.store/; http://monclermaya.club/; http://monclermaya.shop/; http://monclernewyork.store/; http://monclernihon.store/; http://monclero.shop/; http://monclerstyle.shop/; http://monclerstyle.store/; http://monclertokyo.shop/; http://monclertokyo.site/; http://monclertokyo.store/; http://moncleruk.shop/; http://monclervip.promo/; http://monclerxmas.promo/; http://monclerxmas2016.store/; http://monclerxmasstore.shop/; http://tokyomoncler.store/.
The screenshot of the website established < http://www.monclermadrid.store/> indicates that it appears to have been inactive on January 18 2017 when the screenshot was downloaded. Because this domain name is registered as part of a pattern of bad faith registrations, this Examiner is satisfied that there is clear and convincing evidence that this domain name was also registered and is being used in bad faith as on the balance of probabilities it is being passively held by the Respondent to be used to take predatory advantage of Complainant’s goodwill in the MONCLER mark.
On the evidence, by registering and using disputed domain names to resolve to websites selling counterfeit goods and/or purporting to be websites established by Complainant, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to create a confusion among Internet users, taking predatory advantage of Complainant’s goodwill and reputation.
Furthermore, Respondent’s registration of eighty five domain names in issue in this case is indicative of a “pattern” of bad faith registration by Respondent.
This Examiner finds that Complainant has therefore made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<lovemoncler.shop>; <lovemoncler.store>;
<moncler.blackfriday>; <moncler.london>; <moncler.nagoya>; <moncler.one>; <moncler.promo>; <moncler.tokyo>; <moncler2016.store>; <moncler2016ru.store>; <moncler2016sp.store>; <monclerat.online>; <monclerat.shop>; <monclerat.store>; <monclerat2016.store>; <moncleratde.shop>; <moncleratde.store>; <monclerberlin.shop>; <monclerbf.shop>; <monclerbf.store>; <monclerblackfriday.sale>; <monclerblackfriday.shop>; <monclerblackfriday.store>; <monclerboxingday.shop>; <monclercybermonday.sale>; <monclercybermonday.shop>; <monclerde.store>; <monclerde2016.shop>; <monclerdeals.shop>; <moncleres.sale>; <moncleres.shop>; <monclerfashion.shop>; <monclerfashion.store>; <monclergerman.shop>; <monclergreece.shop>; <monclerisrael.store>; <monclerjackesale.shop>; <monclerjacket.sale>; <monclerjacket.store>; <monclerjacketxmas.shop>; <monclerjacketxmas.store>; <monclerjapan.shop>; <monclerjapan.store>; <monclerjp.shop>; <monclerjp.store>; <monclerkr.shop>; <monclerkr.store>; <monclermadrid.shop>; <monclermadrid.store>; <monclermaya.club>; <monclermaya.shop>; <monclernewyork.store>; <monclernihon.store>; <monclero.shop>; <moncleroffers.shop>; <moncleroffers.store>; <moncleronline2016.shop>; <moncleronlineru.shop>; <monclerparis.sale>; <monclerparis.shop>; <monclersale.shop>; <monclersaleru.shop>; <monclersaleuk.shop>; <monclersonline.store>; <monclersoutlet.shop>; <monclersoutlet.store>; <monclersp.shop>; <monclerstore.shop>; <monclerstyle.shop>; <monclerstyle.store>; <monclersuperdeals.sale>; <monclersuperdeals.shop>; <monclersuperdeals.store>; <monclertokyo.shop>; <monclertokyo.site>; <monclertokyo.store>; <moncleruk.shop>; <moncleruk.store>; <monclerukstore.shop>; <monclervip.promo>; <monclervip.sale>; <monclerxmas.promo>; <monclerxmas2016.store>; <monclerxmasstore.shop>; <tokyomoncler.store>
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: February 08, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page