URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Dyson Technology Limited v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2204001991024
DOMAIN NAME
<dysoncom.site>
PARTIES
Complainant: Dyson Technology Limited Craig S Macpherson of Malmesbury, --, United Kingdom | |
Respondent: Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf / Redacted for Privacy of Reykjavik, Capital Region, II, IS | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc. | |
Registrars: Namecheap |
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. | |
Debrett Gordon Lyons, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: April 7, 2022 | |
Commencement: April 8, 2022 | |
Default Date: April 25, 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"). |
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: The Examiner found difficulties with the evidence as presented. |
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 On the evidence Complainant established sub-element (i). [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Respondent On the relevant standard of clear and convincing evidence, the Examiner finds that Complainant has not established that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Respondent On the relevant standard of clear and convincing evidence, the Examiner finds that Complainant has not established that Registrant has used the domain name 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 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:
|
Debrett Gordon Lyons Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page