URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Silit-Werke GmbH & Co. KG v. Lin Yi Yan et al.
Claim Number: FA1611001701190

DOMAIN NAME

<silit.store>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Silit-Werke GmbH & Co. KG of Riedlingen, Germany
	Complainant Representative: Boehmert & Boehmert Lawfirm Sebastian Engels of Berlin, Germany

	Respondent: Lin Yi Yan wangxing wangxing of Shen Zhen Shi, Guang Dong, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotStore Inc.
	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.
	Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: November 3, 2016
	Commencement: November 3, 2016
	Default Date: November 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").

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 submitted its Complaint on November 3, 2016. In the "Explanatory Text" section of the Complaint, Complainant states, in full, as follows: “Complainant and its SILIT brand were founded in 1920 in Riedlingen, Germany and is part of the WMF Group. Complainant is one of the world’s most renowned manufacturers of cooking wear. Complainant distributes its products through its SILIT brand which has a global reputation. “Complainant owns a global portfolio of registered trademarks for its SILIT brand amongst others EUTM 000100198: “SILIT. The Trademark has been registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse (“TMCH”). “Respondent registered the domain name silit.store on October 2, 2016. Respondent is in no way related to Complainant and has not been authorized to register silit.store. “Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s wellknown trademark when registering the disputed domain name as can be seen from the fact that Respondent registered numerous other .store domains matching well-known trademarks (e.g. alfi.store, andreafanfani.store, bourjois.store, dedon.store, dirtdevil.store, kyocera.store, sanofi.store, seafolly.store, tempur.store see Annex A). Due to this pattern of conduct two of Respondent’s domain names have already been suspended in URS proceedings (Case No. 1691156-seafolly.store; Case No. 1691629 -sanofi.store). “Silit.store does not resolve to a website. Complainant contacted Respondent through its attorneys on October 28, 2016 claiming an infringement of its trademarks and requesting a transfer of the domain name against reimbursement of out- of-pocket costs (Annex B). Respondent responded with email of October 31, 2016 offering the domain name for sale and asking for a price offering (‘[…] Domain name value can be large and small, I said the high price, you may not accept. I want to ask you what price to buy this domain name, the price is right, I will sell you’, see Annex C). “The domain name silit.store is identical with Complainant’s registered and wellknown trademark SILIT. Evidence of use for the trademark has been presented to and validated by the TMCH. “Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name. He has not been authorized, licensed, or permitted to register or use the complainant’s trademark as a domain name nor in any other way. “It is evident from Respondent’s general pattern of conduct and the reaction to Complainant’s letter that he registered the domain name in bad faith. He registered the domain name as well as the numerous other domain names matching well-known trademarks primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the trademark owner and/or in order to prevent the trademark owner from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain names part of a pattern of such conduct (URS, para. 1.2.6.3 a, b).” The Forum issued a Notice of Default on November 18, 2016.

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

The Examiner determines that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for 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

The Examiner determines that the 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.
  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

The Examiner determines that that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Although the domain name is not being used in connection with an active website, the Examiner determines that the so-called "passive holding doctrine" is applicable here. Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.

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:

silit.store

Douglas M. Isenberg
Examiner
Dated: November 18, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page