URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Aston Martin Lagonda Limited v. 郭丕林
Claim Number: FA1606001679492

DOMAIN NAME

<astonmartin.xin>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited of Warwick, United Kingdom
	Complainant Representative: Aaron B Newell of London, United Kingdom

	Respondent: 郭丕林郭丕林郭丕林 of 北京市, 北京, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Elegant Leader Limited
	Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)

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.
	Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 15, 2016
	Commencement: June 15, 2016
	Default Date: June 30, 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").

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 has provided the following initial explanatory text, in his Complaint: “Complainant is: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (‘AML’) Founded in 1913 AML: i) is an internationally renowned UK based manufacturer of luxury sports cars with a network of 140 dealerships around the world; ii) secured a revenue of £500 million in 2014; iii) boasts a longstanding association with the James Bond franchise, having been featured in 11 films over a 50 year period, recognising ASTON MARTIN vehicles as “James Bond’s car”; iv) enjoys international repute and owns over 900 filed trade marks in over 80 registers around the world, including EUTM registration no 8387815 ASTON MARTIN covering, inter alia, vehicles and parts and fittings for vehicles (class 12) and retail services connected with the sale of automobiles and automotive goods (class 35); vi) has promoted its products and services online since at least 1995 at www.astonmartin.com and across a number of other TLDs and ccTLDS. Astonmartin.xin (the “DN”) is identical to AML's registered trade mark rights and brand. The Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest in the DN and its use in bad faith are evident because: i. it has secured various domain names identical to other famous brands and deliberately targets these and AML through bad faith registrations, including bugatti.xin, maserati.xin, ferrari.xin, lamborghini.xin, yamaha.xin and skype.xin; ii. registered the DN at the .xin extension (translating to mean “trust”), creating risk that it may mislead customers into perceiving the DN as genuine and authorised by AML; iii. has registered bugatti.xin, ferrari.xin, maserati.xin and lamborghini.xin on the same day (1st October 2015) demonstrating a specific interest in well-known car brands and showing a pattern of targeting and intentionally incorporating third party brands into domain names without authorisation; iv. does not actively use the DN for the purposes of a live site, evidencing intention of seeking to block the Complainant from owning the DN most likely with the intention of generating profit from the DN (as further demonstrated below); v. has been subject to an adverse UDRP decision by panellist Darryl C. Wilson, where the domains citi.xin and citibank.xin were found to have been used in bad faith, further demonstrating a conduct of bad faith use in domain registrations (http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1660186.htm); vi. as reported in the linked decision, has offered citi.xin and citibank.xin at auction at a starting bid equivalent to $76,224.74 for each name, demonstrating intention to sell branded domain names for profit; vii. has no authorisation to use the ASTON MARTIN name and would have been notified of AML’s TMCH registration and registered the DN despite this; viii. the DN risks diverting traffic away from AML’s main website or any sites authorized by them and further risks impersonation through emails; ix. this risks misleading consumers that the DN either is owned by AML or that it is licenced by them, resulting in damage to the overall brand and repute, because the DN is completely outside of AML’s control; x. there is no good faith use that Respondent could make of the DN. The Complaint should therefore succeed.” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) the print-screens of Proof of the use for his trademark; (2) the Domain Name’s website screenshot; and (3) the trademark record (EUIPO). Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint.period, recognising ASTON MARTIN vehicles as “James Bond’s car”; iv) enjoys international repute and owns over 900 filed trade marks in over 80 registers around the world, including EUTM registration no 8387815 ASTON MARTIN covering, inter alia, vehicles and parts and fittings for vehicles (class 12) and retail services connected with the sale of automobiles and automotive goods (class 35); vi) has promoted its products and services online since at least 1995 at www.astonmartin.com and across a number of other TLDs and ccTLDS. Astonmartin.xin (the “DN”) is identical to AML's registered trade mark rights and brand. The Respondent’s lack of legitimate interest in the DN and its use in bad faith are evident because: i. it has secured various domain names identical to other famous brands and deliberately targets these and AML through bad faith registrations, including bugatti.xin, maserati.xin, ferrari.xin, lamborghini.xin, yamaha.xin and skype.xin; ii. registered the DN at the .xin extension (translating to mean “trust”), creating risk that it may mislead customers into perceiving the DN as genuine and authorised by AML; iii. has registered bugatti.xin, ferrari.xin, maserati.xin and lamborghini.xin on the same day (1st October 2015) demonstrating a specific interest in well-known car brands and showing a pattern of targeting and intentionally incorporating third party brands into domain names without authorisation; iv. does not actively use the DN for the purposes of a live site, evidencing intention of seeking to block the Complainant from owning the DN most likely with the intention of generating profit from the DN (as further demonstrated below); v. has been subject to an adverse UDRP decision by panellist Darryl C. Wilson, where the domains citi.xin and citibank.xin were found to have been used in bad faith, further demonstrating a conduct of bad faith use in domain registrations (http://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/1660186.htm); vi. as reported in the linked decision, has offered citi.xin and citibank.xin at auction at a starting bid equivalent to $76,224.74 for each name, demonstrating intention to sell branded domain names for profit; vii. has no authorisation to use the ASTON MARTIN name and would have been notified of AML’s TMCH registration and registered the DN despite this; viii. the DN risks diverting traffic away from AML’s main website or any sites authorized by them and further risks impersonation through emails; ix. this risks misleading consumers that the DN either is owned by AML or that it is licenced by them, resulting in damage to the overall brand and repute, because the DN is completely outside of AML’s control; x. there is no good faith use that Respondent could make of the DN. The Complaint should therefore succeed.” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) the print-screens of Proof of the use for his trademark; (2) the Domain Name’s website screenshot; and (3) the trademark record (EUIPO). Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint.

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 has proven that he owns the trademark “ASTON MARTIN” (EUIPO). The Domain Name “Astonmartin.xin” reproduces this trademark and is identical. Moreover, the new gTLD “.XIN” does not reduce the similarity with the trademark. Therefore, the registered Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds valid registration/rights, 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 proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use his trademark.

[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

Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. Complainant products (luxury sports cars) are famous with a great amount of notoriety. Complainant has proven that he enjoys international repute and owns many trademarks in over 80 registers around the world, including EUIPO registration no 8387815 ASTON MARTIN. He has promoted its products and services online since at least 1995 at www.astonmartin.com. Furthermore, Respondent must have been aware of this trademark (and products) at the time of the registration of the Domain Name. He must also have known that the registration of the Domain Name was in bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from using/reflecting its trademark in a corresponding Domain Name (Complainant has pointed on other disputable registrations of famous string in Complainantπ’s portfolio, e.g. maserati.xin). In conclusion, passive possession of identical Domain Name consisting of protected word marks and without any manifest proof of purpose towards commercial benefit, can't represent a good faith use under overall circumstances presented in this case.

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:

astonmartin.xin

Mr. Tomáš Abelovský
Examiner
Dated: July 6, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page