Marshall Amplification plc v. et al.
Claim Number: FA2011001920374
Complainant: Marshall Amplification plc of Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Stobbs IP Ltd of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Harris Luke of CA, California, US.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 12, 2020
Commencement: November 12, 2020
Default Date: December 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant was incorporated in 1964 and changed its corporate name to ‘Marshall Amplification plc' in 1992. Complainant registered <marshall.com> in 1994 and operates from www.marshall.com/. Complainant’s 'Marshall’
brand is renowned for producing various products including music amplifiers, speakers and headphones. Complainant utilises a network of authorised dealers and licensees to market its products in over 70 countries.
Complainant owns a European Union trademark registration (Registration No. 015249535) for the word mark “MARSHALL”.
Complainant asserts the following against the Respondent:
1. The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use;
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2];
3. The domain name was registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other online 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.
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 is the owner of the European Union trademark registration (Registration No. 015249535) for the word mark “MARSHALL” which was registered on November 4, 2016.
The domain name includes Complainant's mark in its entirety with the addition of a descriptive term “headphone”, together with the gTLD ".store".
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its MARSHALL mark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the registered 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; 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; c. Registrant has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online 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 provided evidence showing a webpage of the Disputed Domain Name which appears to sell counterfeit goods of the Complainant which the Complainant has confirmed via a test purchase. The evidence provided clearly shows that the Respondent is attempting to attract internet users looking for Complainant’s goods, and purposefully misleading users as to the source of the website. By using Complainant’s trademark in the Disputed Domain and hiding the identity of the website provider, Respondent is purposefully misleading users as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the offerings under the Disputed Domain. The evidence provided clearly shows that the Respondent was targeting the Complainant. Given the clear and convincing evidence filed by the Complainant, the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to disrupt the business of the Complainant and creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 (c) and (d).
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.
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: December 03, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page