TechInsights Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1904001838294
Complainant: TechInsights Inc. of Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Complainant Representative: Merizzi Ramsbottom & Forster of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Respondent: Unknown (privacy service by WhoisGuard, Inc. / WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, PA.)
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 10, 2019
Commencement: April 15, 2019
Default Date: May 4, 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.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <tech-insights.services>. There is one Complainant and an unknown Respondent, and no domain names were dismissed from this Complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <tech-insights.services>.
Complainant, TechInsights Inc., is the former registrant owner and current licensee of trademark techinsights, which according to its 2006 trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, has been in use since at least the filing date of 2004.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
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:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registration. The Complainant’s trademark is registered in a number of jurisdictions and has been in use at least 15 years.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name, whether by responding to this Complaint or vis-a-vis the content of their website.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. While the domain name could theoretically be utilized in a non breaching manner due to the possible commonality of the name being tech insights, there is no evidence of any intent as such. Further, the evidence provided by the Complainant includes what is described as a fraudulent invoice, which invokes intellectual property of both the Complainant and another referenced entity, Insight Direct USA, as well as evidence that the website of the Respondent is mimicking the site of the above referenced entity. Although it is conceivable that the Respondent is licensed by the above referenced entity, the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complaint and provide any evidence of such, and further, the references to the name of the Complainant and Complainant’s locale in the invoice strengthen the assumption of bad faith. Concluding that the trademark is being utilized solely to attract and induce visitors to make purchases from this domain is reasonable, as the domain gives an automatic inference of affiliation to the entity holding the trademark, and would cause confusion amongst internet users into an assumption of an affiliation or relationship. (See Treeforms.com FA0010000095856)
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.
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: May 4, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page