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

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the disputed domain name is identical to the trademark DYSON in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ".com", ".org" or in casu ".store" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar. Nor does it change this position that the Respondent has added the generic term "ukr" referring to "Ukraine" to the trademark of the Complainant in the disputed domain name.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website, this is not disputed by the Respondent. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

[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 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Examiner, shown the disputed name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the character and documented use of the trademark DYSON by the Complainant and the Respondent, it is clear and not disputed by the Respondent, that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademarks. In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. The disputed domain name seems merely to be registered to generate traffic in an obvious attempt to trade off of the fame of the trademarks of the Complainant. All these elements leads to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion or association with the Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of that website by the Complainant.

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:

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:

dyson-ukr.online

	Complainant Submitted: March 1, 2022
	Commencement: March 1, 2022
	Default Date: March 16, 2022
	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: Dyson Technology Limited Craig S Macpherson of Malmesbury, --, United Kingdom

	Respondent: Hosting Ukraine LLC Hosting Ukraine LLC of Kiev, II, UA

	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.
	Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

	Registries: DotOnline Inc.
	Registrars: Hosting Ukraine LLC