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: 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.
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:
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:
|
Douglas M. Isenberg Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page