URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
CDN v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2106001952461
DOMAIN NAME
<keycdn.org>
PARTIES
| Complainant: CDN Jonas Krummenacher of Wollerau, Switzerland | |
| Respondent: Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf service provided by Withheld for Privacy of Reykjavik Capital Region, Capital Region, IS | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Public Interest Registry | |
| Registrars: NameCheap, Inc. |
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. | |
| Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: June 24, 2021 | |
| Commencement: June 24, 2021 | |
| Default Date: July 9, 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"). |
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: Complainant has merely made conclusory statements repeating the tests that must be met. Complainant’s submission is far too brief and merely repeats the tests that Complainant must meet as follows: “Grounds on which Complainant is entitled to relief (URS Proc. 1.2.6) 1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 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/.usRS 1.2.6.2] 3. [if URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: [if .usRS] The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as: 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. 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†There is no attempt to produce any explanation or argument. The URS is a summary procedure and while detailed Complaints are not required and while Complainant has adduced documents in support of the Complaint, there has been no attempt to explain them or put them into context. Complainant has not met the standard of clear and convincing evidence. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Respondent The Complaint provides insufficient information regarding the elements of URS 1.2.6.1. There is no support provided to specify what are the ties between the registered holder of the U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4,843,413 for Keycdn.com and the Complainant as it identifies itself in the Complaint. The standard of proof is the clear and convincing element, which has not been met by the Complainant and the Panel cannot establish ownership in a mark by the Complainant. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Respondent The Complaint fails to specifically address URS 1.2.6.2 at all. Complainant has not met the standard of clear and convincing evidence.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Respondent The Complaint fails to specifically address URS 1.2.6.3 at all. Complainant has not met the standard of clear and convincing evidence. 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:
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:
|
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page