URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH v.
Claim Number: FA1906001846474

DOMAIN NAME

<codesys.dev>

PARTIES

	Complainant: 3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH of Kempten, Germany
	Complainant Representative: VKK Patentanwälte Lars Hoppe of Kempten, Germany

	Respondent: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1244031012 of Toronto, ON, CA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc.
	Registrars:

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.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 5, 2019
	Commencement: June 7, 2019
	Default Date: June 24, 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").

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: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant stated that the Registrant does not possess any rights to the word codesys, that their search has revealed no registered trademarks for codesys by the Registrant in any jurisdiction and that their monitoring of activities in the market excluded the possibility that the Complainant has used codesys on the market in a way giving rise to non-registered rights. The Complainant has asserted that the disputed domain codesys.dev was registered under the newTLD.dev and that this is a newTLD intended for activities related to computing, software etc. While their codesys trademark registered before numerous jurisdictions was for industrial automation software and software for controllers. The Complainant further asserted that codesys is a distinctive term which has no inherent meaning. The Complainant stated that the Registrant, having been required to click on -Acknowledge Claim- when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice, was therefore aware of the Complainantï¿½s trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name and has acted in bad faith. The Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

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 Complainant has clearly met their burden by clear and convincing evidence, proving that the domain in dispute, codesys.dev, is indistinguishably similar to their nationally and internationally registered CoDeSys trademark -WIPO Reg. No: 1057393- for which the Complainant holds valid and current international registration which is actively in use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has claimed having conducted research revealing that no trademark registrations exist for codesys in the name of the Respondent and claimed that the Respondent has no non-registered rights born from non-use as well. The Respondent has provided no response or evidence regarding any right they might have nor any legitimate interest over the disputed domain name. It is therefore understood that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest over the disputed 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 main component of the disputed domain is codesys which is a word without meaning as well as being a well-known trademark in its field belonging to the Complainant. Presented with no legitimate interest nor any evidence to the contrary, it is understood that the Respondant was aware of the Complainantï¿½s trademark at the time of registration. Seeing as how the website appears to have been parked solely for the purpose of being sold, with a visible banner on the website stating that the domain is for sale for USD 1000, the Examiner concludes that the Registrant has acted in bad faith.

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:

codesys.dev

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: June 27, 2019

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page