BALENCIAGA SA v. justin justin
Claim Number: FA1605001676542
Complainant: BALENCIAGA SA of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: INSIDERS of Paris, France.
Respondent: justin justin of Beijing, beijing, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: Unknown.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSpace Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
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.
David J. Steele, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 25, 2016
Commencement: May 25, 2016
Default Date: June 9, 2016
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 name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant states that it owns numerous Chinese trademarks, including Trademark No. 583,204 for the mark BALENCIAGA and has provided support for its trademark rights, including copies of numerous Chinese registration certificates. Complainant further submits as proof of current use of its mark. Complainant alleges that the domain name balenciaga.space is identical to Complainant’s mark.
Complainant alleges that Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way and was not authorized by Balenciaga SA to use the registered Balenciaga trademark. Further, Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name in question, since he has neither a registered business with a name that may justify an interest in the balenciaga.space domain, nor any other legitimate reason to use this domain name.
Complainant lastly alleges that the subject domain name is used in bad faith because, “since its purchase in March 2016 nothing has ever appeared on the website under this domain name. It effectively and deliberately creates confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and diverts traffic from the official balenciaga.com website. The Respondent has therefore put himself in a perfect position to exploit Balenciaga’s popularity and renown for his own gain.”
Complainant has provided a screen shot evidencing that the domain name currently is not in use.
Respondent failed to file any reply.
[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.
Complaint has established its rights to the BALENCIAGA mark.
The subject domain name, balenciaga.space is identical to Complainant’s mark, incept for the addition of the TLD string “space.” The incorporation of a trademark in its entirety into a domain name is sufficient to establish that the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark at issue. I find that the subject domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
Determined: Finding for Complainant.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no trademark or other intellectual property rights to the disputed domain name or the BALENCIAGA mark. Further, Respondent has failed to provide any evidence which support any legitimate rights or interests to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was 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.
Regarding whether the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant states:
The domain name balenciaga.space was acquired in bad faith on the following grounds: since its purchase in March 2016 nothing has ever appeared on the website under this domain name. It effectively and deliberately creates confusion with the Complainant’s trademark and diverts traffic from the official balenciaga.com website. The Respondent has therefore put himself in a perfect position to exploit Balenciaga’s popularity and renown for his own gain.
The language of the Policy requires that Complainant show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. (emphasis added).
While this Examiner can envision numerous hypotheticals where a registrant’s passive holding of a domain name would support, by clear and convincing evidence, that a domain name is being used in bad faith, Complainant has put forth no facts to support such a conclusion in this case.
In sum, after carefully considering the evidence before me, I find that the evidence is not clear and convincing that the domain name is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Respondent
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
balenciaga.space
David J. Steele Esq., Examiner
Dated: June 12, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page