URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


T-Mobile USA, Inc. v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2107001955381


DOMAIN NAME

<metropcs-tech.support>


PARTIES


   Complainant: T-Mobile USA, Inc. of Bellevue, WA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Richard Law Group, Inc. Molly Buck Richard of Dallas, TX, United States of America

   Respondent: Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf FOR of Reykjavik Capital Region, Capital Region, IS
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
   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.
   Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 15, 2021
   Commencement: July 16, 2021
   Default Date: August 2, 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: [OptionalComment]

  

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 offers telecommunications services and related goods and services under the mark METROPCS, registered in 2004. The disputed domain name was registered in 2021. Adding generic or descriptive words to registered marks does not negate confusing similarity, and adding the name of a service associated with a registered mark only compounds the likelihood of confusion. See American Express v. MustNeed.com, FA0404000257901 (FORUM June 7, 2004) and Caterpillar Inc. v. personal, D2010-2190 (WIPO Feb 8, 2011). The TLD is disregarded for purposes of this analysis. See Dell v. Protection of Private Person, FA1606001681432 (FORUM Aug. 1, 2016).


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Registrant is not commonly known as METROPCS or any variation thereof. Registrant has no relationship with Complainant. Complainant has not authorized Registrant to use Complainant’s METROPCS trademark. The resolving website depicts the same header as Complainant’s MetroPCS Edge site and is identical in every respect, other than the removal of the mark T-MOBILE from the site. It is the identical color as the legitimate site and requests users log in information, just like the authentic site. This is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests. See Kensho Technologies, LLC v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY et al. FA1906001846341 (FORUM July 9, 2019) (“The resolving website shows a member login page intended to phish for information from Complainant's customers. As Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name; not authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark; nor using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed 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; 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 resolving website causes initial interest confusion and is likely used to phish for information from Complainant’s customers. This constitutes bad faith registration and use. See Kensho Technologies, LLC v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY et al. FA1906001846341 (FORUM July 9, 2019) (“The resolving website displays Complainant's mark and logo and requests user login information. Thus the resolving webpage is intended to look and feel like an official website of Complainant, intended to impersonate Complainant and to attract and mislead Complainant's customers to obtain their member login information. This appears to be a phishing attempt.”)


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:


  1. 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:

  1. metropcs-tech.support

 

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: August 2, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page