LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. zhu guang peng et al.
Claim Number: FA1607001682324
Complainant: LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH of Köln, Germany.
Complainant Representative: Partridge Partners PC of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Respondent: zhu guang peng of cheng du, SC, International, CN.
zhuguangpeng of shenzhen, China.
Complainant Representative: zhuguangpeng of shenzhen, China.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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 L. Kreider Esq., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 5, 2016
Commencement: July 5, 2016
Response Date: July 18, 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.
The Examiner notes that Respondent has filed a Response and has additionally alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods.
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
The Examiner finds that the Disputed Domain incorporates Complainant’s LANXESS mark in full and is Identical to Complainant’s Verified LANXESS Trademark.
The Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its fanciful LANXESS trademark and Respondent’s use, which consists of the passive holding of the Disputed Domain, is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Despite receiving notice of Complainant’s rights via the Trademark Clearinghouse, Respondent registered and is passively holding the disputed domain name. See Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Chen Yu, NAF Claim FA1606001680975 (finding bad faith where Respondent “knowingly registered [<footlocker.vip>] after receiving a notice that it matches a mark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse”).
The Respondent’s assertions of his or her “lawful” registration of the Disputed Domain with innocent intent and lack of knowledge of the Complainant Company and its rights in the Mark, are without merit. The Examiner accepts that no other use exists for the term LANXESS, so “the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain.” Foot Locker, NAF Claim FA1606001680975.
FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD
The Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods, averring that Complainant is not a web-based company; Respondent registered the Disputed Domain in good faith and without the intention of selling the domain; that the Disputed Domain name is not identical to Complainant’s Mark; and that Respondent was first in time to register the Disputed Domain and had no knowledge of Complainant’s rights at the time of registration.
The Examiner finds that no abuse of these URS proceedings or material falsehood by Complainant has been sufficiently alleged or proven.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
LANXESS.VIP
David L. Kreider Esq., Examiner
Dated: July 18, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page