NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


COMPAGNIE GERVAIS DANONE v. Long-Van NGUYEN-SAUVAGE
Claim Number: FA1503001607421


DOMAIN NAME

<danone.paris>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: Long-Van NGUYEN-SAUVAGE of Parid, IDF, II, FR
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: City of Paris
   Registrars: DOMAINE.FR

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.
   Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: March 2, 2015
   Commencement: March 3, 2015
   Default Date: March 18, 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



   Findings of Fact: Complainant states that it "is a subsidiary of Danone and a worldwide leading company in several lines of business, from fresh dairy products to medical nutrition, baby nutrition and waters"; that it "is present in over 140 countries including France, where its head office is located (Paris) and where it is well-known"; that it "owns numerous trademarks registered around the world, including the well-known trademark DANONE which is largely exploited and widely used"; that the DANONE trademarks are registered in ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse; and that the Disputed Domain Name "resolves to a page containing a link to the registrar’s website."

  

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 


Complainant contends that it "owns numerous trademarks registered around the world, including the well-known trademark DANONE which is largely exploited and widely used." Complainant cites WIPO Case No. D2007-1864, in which the panel found that Complainant has rights in the DANONE trademark (cancellation of <danonetv.com> and <danone-tv.com>). Complainant states, and provides evidence to support, that the DANONE trademark is registered with ICANN's Trademark Clearinghouse. The Disputed Domain Name contains the DANONE trademark, and only the DANONE trademark, in its entirety in the second-level portion of the domain. Registrant has not disputed any of these contentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark or which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that 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 contends that, inter alia, that Registrant “has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the domain name” that “[t]he DANONE trademark registration preceded the disputed domain name’s registration”; and that “Respondent is not known by the name ‘DANONE’, in any way affiliated with Complainant, nor authorized or licensed to use the ‘DANONE’ trademark or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark.” Registrant has not disputed any of these contentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[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 


Complainant contends that "a quick search on DANONE would have revealed to Respondent the existence of Complainant and its trademarks"; that a "reverse Whois search on the registrant’s email address has shown that he is a notorious cybersquatter who has registered many domain names in <.paris>, using famous French trademarks and trade names, such as: <airbusgroup.paris>,<christian-lacroix.paris>, <michelin.paris>, <gemalto.paris> or <sanofi.paris>"; that "passive holding of a disputed domain name can satisfy the requirements"; and that "using this domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users onto his website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website." Registrant has not disputed any of these contentions. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. danone.paris

 

Douglas M. Isenberg
Examiner
Dated: March 23, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page