Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Unknown
Claim Number: FA1903001833736
Complainant: Koninklijke Philips N.V., The Netherlands.
Complainant Representative: Ihlas Yazberdiev of Ivanov, Makarov & Partners, Russia.
Respondent: Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of Mateo, California, US.
Respondent Representative: /
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot LLC
The undersigned certifies that he 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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 13, 2019
Commencement: March 13, 2019
Default Date: March 28, 2019
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.
Findings of Fact:
The Complainant, Koninklijke Philips N.V., has shown that it is the owner of different trademarks named AVENT and AVENT NATURALLY, registered in several jurisdictions, including in Russia, in relation to, amongst others, baby products. The Complainant submitted evidence of several word and figurative trademark registrations AVENT and AVENT NATURALLY.
The Complainant has submitted evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website where AVENT baby products are offered for sale. The website uses the AVENT trademarks (word and figurative) to offer AVENT baby products for sale. Additionally, the website issues a (Russian) statement that the website is an official Philips AVENT website or online shop of AVENT baby products in Russia, and also issues a (Russian) statement that the website works with the authorized importers of Philips AVENT baby products in Russia.
The Respondent failed to submit any Response to the Complaint.
Discussion:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, the URS Procedure 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 is 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 the Complainant
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of Complainant’s registered word mark (taken in its entirety), paired with the generic top level domain “.info”.
The Examiner notes that URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark held by the Complainant. The Examiner finds that, in its Complaint, the Complainant has given satisfying evidence that it is the owner of various word marks (and figurative marks) named “AVENT” and “AVENT NATURALLY”. The trademarks are registered in several countries and/or regions, including in Russia, in relation to, amongst others, baby products. The disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark, combined with the suffix “.info”. Therefore, the Examiner notes that the domain name, which includes the word element “avent”, is confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainant.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant argues that he did not issue any permission and/or consent for the use of its trademarks on www.avent.online and in the domain name itself, and did not conclude any related contracts or licensee agreements with the Registrant.
The Examiner notes that the Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. The Respondent did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “AVENT” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. For all of the above reasons, the Examiner determines that the Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
As mentioned above, the Complainant has submitted evidence that the domain name
leads to a website where AVENT baby products are offered for sale. On several pages
of this website, the AVENT trademarks (word and figurative) are depicted (e.g. on the
home page and in the menu of the website (“tab”). Moreover, the Complainant’s wordmark is used in the domain name itself, with the addition of the “.info”-suffix.
Additionally, the website issues a statement (in Russian) that the website is an official
Philips AVENT website and online shop of AVENT baby products in Russia, and also
issues a statement (in Russian) that the website works with the authorized importers of
Philips AVENT baby products in Russia.
The Examiner agrees with the Complainant that the domain name falsely suggests that
there is a commercial link between the Complainant and the AVENT baby
products that are offered for sale via the disputed domain name, and therefore creates a
risk of confusion and may mislead consumers as to the origin of these products.
The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. In general terms, there are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
The Examiner further finds that the use of the Complainant’s logo “AVENT” on the website available through the domain name, combined with the use of the domain name for selling products that compete with the products offered for sale by the Complainant, is further evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith use and registration of the domain name. The Examiner points to the fact that the Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website of the Respondent, which proves that the Respondent is indeed selling goods that are competing with the Complainant’s goods (or that are at least covered by the Complainant’s trademark registrations, in particular baby products).
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Registrant.
The Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (c) and (d) are applicable in this case:
· Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; and
· By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online 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.
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.
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: April 2, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page