With the Paris Olympiad ante portas, a multi-domain UDRP filed by the PARIS 2024 Comité d’Organisation des Jeux Olympiques et Paralympiques (COJOP) against multiple respondents ended with the Complainant’s victory.
The following domains were involved, all of which will be suspended until the end of their remaining registration:
paris2024.blog
paris2024.casa
paris2024.fun
paris2024.money
paris2024.network
paris2024.party
paris2024.promo
paris2024.properties
paris2024.rentals
paris2024.show
paris2024.space
paris2024.trade
The case can be reviewed below:
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
PARIS 2024 COMITE D’ORGANISATION DES JEUX OLYMPIQUES ET PARALYMPIQUES (COJO) v. Private by Design, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA2402002081934DOMAIN NAME
paris2024.blog
paris2024.casa
paris2024.fun
paris2024.money
paris2024.network
paris2024.party
paris2024.promo
paris2024.properties
paris2024.rentals
paris2024.show
paris2024.space
paris2024.tradePARTIES
Complainant: PARIS 2024 COMITE D’ORGANISATION DES JEUX OLYMPIQUES ET PARALYMPIQUES (COJO) of Saint-Denis, FranceComplainant Representative: Plasseraud IP of Paris Cedex 02, France
Respondent: Whois Privacy / Private by Design, LLC of Sanford, NC, US
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Knock Knock WHOIS There, LLC,Registry Services, LLC,Radix Technologies Inc.,Identity Digital Limited,Binky Moon, LLC,Blue Sky Registry Limited,Elite Registry Limited
Registrars: Porkbun, LLC,Porkbun,Porkbun LLCEXAMINER
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.
Carol Stoner, as ExaminerPROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: February 2, 2024
Commencement: February 6, 2024
Default Date: February 21, 2024
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
Procedural Findings:
Multiple Complainants: Examiner declines to dismiss any of the cited domain names.
Multiple Respondents: Examiner rules that no Respondents are dismissed and that this Determination will relate to all domain names alleged.Findings of Fact: Complaint’s factual contentions are both comprehensive and credible.
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 met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, so as to prevail upon [URS 1.2.6.1] (i) and (iii).
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, so as to prevail upon [URS 1.2.6.2]. Further, as Respondent is in Default, no defenses have been provided.
[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
Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence, so as to prevail upon [URS 1.2.6.3] a.
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:
paris2024.blog
paris2024.casa
paris2024.fun
paris2024.promo
paris2024.properties
paris2024.rentals
paris2024.money
paris2024.network
paris2024.party
paris2024.show
paris2024.space
paris2024.tradeCarol Stoner
Examiner
Dated: February 27, 2024
