URS FINAL DETERMINATION

R.O.I. Properties, LLC v. RAVI NANGUNOORI et al.
Claim Number: FA1906001847210

DOMAIN NAME

<roiproperties.xyz>

PARTIES

	Complainant: R.O.I. Properties, LLC of Phoenix, AZ, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Weiss Brown, PLLC Jennifer Lefere of Scottsdale, AZ, United States of America

	Respondent: RAVI I NANGUNOORI of HYDERABAD, India

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
	Registrars: Go Daddy, 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.
	Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 10, 2019
	Commencement: June 11, 2019
	Response Date: June 11, 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

Findings of Fact: The Examiner have upon testing the arguments presented by the Complainant not been able to find immediate proof that the Site spreads malware or viruses. The Site reached by the Examiner is as alleged by the Respondent a parking site hosted by GoDaddy.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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

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

Determined: Finding for Respondent

The Complainant have not filed any evidence supporting that there are no possible legitimate interest in the domain name at the part of the Respondent. It is the Examiners view that the Mark clearly consists of the terms "ROI", widely understood as an abbreviation of the term Return On Investment, and "Properties" being legitimate and relevant words to use to describe a business within the area of investing in properties not only by the Complainant. Furthermore the Complainant has not filed evidence supporting that the Mark is registered outside the United States or that the mark is well-known or even known outside the United States.

[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 Respondent

In the view of the Examiner the Complainant have not filed arguments or evidence able to lift the burden of proof resting on the Complainant that any of the requirements a - d in the URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 are fullfilled.

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.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner finds as follows:

The Complaint contained material falsehoods.

The Examiner has been unable to find immediate evidence supporting that the landing page of the Site spreads malware and/or virus as alleged by Complainant.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

roiproperties.xyz

The Examiner further finds the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above. Complainant is reminded of URS Procedure 11 when making future filings.

Lars Karnøe
Examiner
Dated: June 13, 2019

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page