BALENCIAGA SA v. Inner Concept Media et al.
Claim Number: FA1605001676545
Complainant: BALENCIAGA SA of Paris, France.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: INSIDERS of Paris, France.
Respondent: Inner Concept Media of New York, New York, US.
Respondent Representative: Unknown
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
Registrars: eNom, Inc.
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.
[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.
Complainant states that it owns U.S. Trademark No. 3,344,631 for the mark BALENCIAGA and has provided support for its trademark rights, including a copy of the registration certificate. Complainant further submits as proof of current use of its mark. Complainant alleges that the domain name balenciaga.website 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.website domain, nor any other legitimate reason to use this domain name.
Complainant lastly alleges that the subject domain name is used in bad faith to host a commercial parking page. Complainant has provided a screen shot evidencing use of the subject domain name to host a parking page. The Panelist notes that the screen shot shows the parking page features links which are related to the goods offered under Complainant’s mark.
Respondent failed to file any reply.
Complaint has established its rights to the BALENCIAGA mark.
The subject domain name, balenciaga.website is identical to Complainant’s mark, incept for the addition of the TLD string “website.” 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.
Complainant alleges that the subject domain name is used in bad faith to host a commercial parking page. The provided screen shot evidences this fact. Further, the evidence supports that the parking page features links which are related to the goods offered under Complainant’s mark.
This use satisfies the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant.
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.
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