3S-Smart Software Solution GmbH v. et al.
Claim Number: FA2102001930566
Complainant: 3S-Smart Software Solution GmbH of Kempten, Germany.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: VKK Patentanwälte of Kempten, Germany.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Afilias Limited
Registrars: Dynadot, 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.
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes Mr., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 1, 2021
Commencement: February 2, 2021
Default Date: February 17, 2021
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.
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.
Even though 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
Disregarding the gTLD “.pro”, the registered domain name is identical to Complainant's trade mark "CODESYS”, registered under international registration No. 1057393 with a registration date of September 29, 2010 (the “Trade Mark”).
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Respondent has no legitimate rights or interests in respect of the domain name. Respondent has no trade mark rights in respect of the domain name. The domain name has not been used by Respondent and has simply been resolved to a website offering the domain name for sale for €2,384.41 (the “Website”).
[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 domain name has been offered for sale on the Website for €2,384.41. This is clear evidence of bad faith.
The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
Respondent has made no allegation that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.
The Examiner finds the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<codesys.pro>
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, Examiner
Dated: February 22, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page