COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE v. questology

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE v. questology
Claim Number: FA1502001605693

DOMAIN NAME

<danone.social>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: questology Nicolas Cloutier of Montreal, PQ, CA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: United TLD Holdco Ltd.
	Registrars: Name.com, 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.
	Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: February 19, 2015
	Commencement: February 20, 2015
	Default Date: March 9, 2015
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complainant is a subsidiary of Groupe Danone, a worldwide leading company in several lines of business. The Complainant owns numerous trademarks registered around the world, including the well-known trademark DANONE which is fully exploited and widely used. The complainant claimed that the domain name resolves to a parking page containing commercial links reproducing Complainant’s trademarks and related to its line of Business. The complainant claimed that the domain name entirely reproduces the prior trademark DANONE. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The complainant claimed that the respondent could not have been unaware of Complainant’s rights since the disputed domain name reproduced identically the well-known trademark DANONE and only add a TLD to it. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

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 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

The disputed domain name <danone.social> is identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks DANONE. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademarks DANONE. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as DANONE. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in DANONE and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.

[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

Since Complainant’s trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name (identical to a registered trademark) was made on bad faith. Furthermore, Examiner agrees with complainant in that while DANONE trademarks are registered in the TMCH, Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite having received a notification stating that the domain name matches a trademark registered in the TMCH. Finally, the domain name resolves to a click through site. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.

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:

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:

danone.social

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: March 12, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page