URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA2006001899920

DOMAIN NAME

<comsearch.store>

PARTIES

	Complainant: CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina of Hickory, NC, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Merchant & Gould, P.C. William Schultz of Minneapolis, MN, United States of America

	Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama Panama, Panama, PA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotStore Inc.
	Registrars: Namecheap

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.
	Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: June 11, 2020
	Commencement: June 16, 2020
	Default Date: July 1, 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: The Complainant has owned and used the COMSEARCH mark since 1977 in connection with a wide range of communications products and services, including technical consulting and engineering related to networks. In addition, the Complainant registered and has used the comsearch.com domain name since 1992 to market its goods and services. The Complainant owns a trademark registration COMSEARCH, filed with the USPTO on Feb. 20, 1997 and registered on Mar. 24, 1998 (Reg. No. 2,146,202), which is currently in use and was in use prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant provided a copy of its trademark registration. The Complainant provided a screen shot of the products page of its website, which shows use of the COMSEARCH trademark. Other products and services that bear the COMSEARCH trademark are listed on the comsearch.com website. The screenshots show use of the COMSEARCH mark in connection with network services and network products. The COMSEARCH trademark is coined and has no other meaning than the Complainant's trademark. Respondent has no legitimate right to the disputed domain name, which is identical to the COMSEARCH mark, based on Complainant's prior rights. The Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use the COMSEARCH marks or any derivative mark for any purpose. The disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use (no content on the site). Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name. A screenshot of the website of the Respondent site showed no use of the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserts that the registration was made in bad faith to trade on the Complainant's rights. Because COMSEARCH is a coined trademark that has no other meaning other than the services provided by the Complainant, Respondent was aware of Complainant's COMSEARCH trademark at the time of registration. The Complainant contends that based on the fact the top level name is .store, any use of the name is competitive because consumers visiting a store branded with COMSEARCH would be searching for Complainant's offerings. In addition, the Respondent's use of the top level .store prevents the Complainant from controlling the name and disrupts Complainant's business of controlling the manner in which it offers products and services. Further, because there is no meaning of the disputed domain name comsearch.store other than Complainant's trademark, the evidence shows that Respondent intentionally attempted to register the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion that the disputed domain name was associated with the Complainant.

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

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

[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

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:

comsearch.store

Vali Sakellarides
Examiner
Dated: July 7, 2020

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page