URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
OANDA Corporation v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2110001968199
DOMAIN NAME
<oanda.club>
PARTIES
Complainant: OANDA Corporation of NEW YORK, NY, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Donahue Fitzgerald
Barbara L. Friedman of Oakland, USA
|
Respondent: Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik, Capital Region, II, IS | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, 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: October 7, 2021 | |
Commencement: October 11, 2021 | |
Default Date: October 26, 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 states that it has been a worldwide leader in the field of currency exchange services. It also provides a platform that is used by millions of people around the world for trading both hard currency and cryptocurrency. Complainant has rights in the OANDA mark through its registration in the United States in 2004. The disputed domain name was registered in 2021. |
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 The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of Complainant’s mark, adding only the gTLD designator “club.†The addition of a generic gTLD adds nothing to distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect users to its pornographic web portal and to its webpage with the domain address <cheatersparadiseco.com> which appears to be essentially a dating site for people cheating on their spouses and is loaded with pornographic images. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its OANDA trademark in any manner. Nor is Respondent’s domain name used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services: Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name serves to undermine and tarnish the OANDA brand by associating it with graphic pornographic images and content. The Panel finds that this is not a legitimate use of the disputed domain name and that the Registrant has no legitimate rights or interest to the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant As already noted, the disputed domain name redirects users to an adult entertainment site. Thus Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. 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:
|
Richard W. Hill Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page