URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
ULIONA LIMITED v. Private by Design, LLC
Claim Number: FA2108001961360
DOMAIN NAME
<savefrom.party>
PARTIES
Complainant: ULIONA LIMITED of Victoria, Seychelles | |
Complainant Representative: Dmitri Dubograev of Alexandria, VA, United States of America
|
Respondent: Whois Privacy / Private by Design, LLC of Sanford, NC, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Blue Sky Registry Limited | |
Registrars: Porkbun |
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. | |
Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 27, 2021 | |
Commencement: August 30, 2021 | |
Default Date: September 14, 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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 4931103 for the mark SAVEFROM since 2016, which covers goods of classes 9 and 42. Moreover, complainant has been using the SAVEFROM Mark and the Complainant's domain, <savefrom.net>, since March 12, 2008, which is well before the Respondent's purchase of the Infringing Domain on July 18, 2019. The disputed domain name <savefrom.party> is identical to Complainant’s registered SAVEFROM mark. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the generic top level domain “.partyâ€. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use. [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 registered trademark SAVEFROM. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the SAVEFROM Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the SAVEFROM Mark. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as SAVEFROM. Consequently, there is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in SAVEFROM and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Since Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain name, it provides identical and/or confusingly similar products to that of the Complainant. Complainant's <savefrom.net> is a well-known and regarded service provider of tools that provide users the ability to download videos for personal use under the SaveFrom Mark ("Products"). Examiner agrees with complainant in that Respondent has purchased the Infringing Domain and chosen to offer identical and/or confusingly similar Products on the Infringing Domain to that of Complainant. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3. 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 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:
|
Hector Ariel Manoff Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page