URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


LAFUMA S.A. v.
Claim Number: FA2007001903302


DOMAIN NAME

<braderielafumapascher.xyz>


PARTIES


   Complainant: LAFUMA S.A. of ANNECY LE VIEUX, France
  
Complainant Representative: Germain Maureau of LYON, France

   Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: Dynadot LLC

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.
   Anne M. Wallace, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 8, 2020
   Commencement: July 10, 2020
   Default Date: July 27, 2020
   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 owns trade mark registrations for LAFUMA in connection with outdoor equipment and clothing since 1930. Respondent registered braderielafumapascher.xyz which contains the word braderie (meaning street-market), the LAFUMA mark and the word pascher (meaning cheap). The disputed domain name was previously used to sell counterfeit products.

  

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 dispute domain name essentially suggests that it sells cheap street-market LAFUMA goods. As such the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the LAFUMA mark for which Complainant owns trademark registrations.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


There is no evidence to suggest registrant/respondent has any legitimate right or interest in 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 


An inference of bad faith can be drawn by Respondent's registration of the identical domain name previous registered and used to sell counterfeit products.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. braderielafumapascher.xyz

 

Anne M. Wallace
Examiner
Dated: July 28, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page