URS
DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Prodege, LLC v. See
PrivacyGuardian.org et al.
Claim Number: FA2204001992994
DOMAIN NAME
PARTIES
Complainant:
Prodege, LLC of El Segundo, California, United States of America.
Complainant
Representative:
Complainant
Representative: Cooley LLP of Santa Monica, United States of America.
Respondent:
See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, US.
Respondent
Representative: None, as no response was filed.
REGISTRIES
and REGISTRARS
Registries:
XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars:
Sav.com, LLC; NameSilo, LLC
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.
Kendall
C. Reed, as Examiner.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant
submitted: April 19, 2022
Commencement:
April 22, 2022
Default
Date: May 9, 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
The
Complaint admits that it does not know whether the Disputed Domain Names
were registered by the same person or more than one person, and this is because
the WHOIS record for each of the Disputed Domain Names identifies the
registrant organization as “Privacy Protection.”
An
examination of the WHOIS record for a random sampling of the Disputed Domain
Names shows a distinct pattern of registration that is unlikely to have resulted
from random, unrelated events. All but one of the Disputed Domain Names were
registered on either January 7, 2022, or January 17, 2022, and the remaining
Disputed Domain Name was registered only six months earlier, on May 6,
2021. This pattern is suggestive of a single actor or some concerted effort on
the part of more than one person but does not rise to the level of clear and convincing
evidence for purposes of a URS proceeding. This inference might be sufficient
for a UDRP proceeding, but not for purposes of the URS.
The
significance of this point is that if this matter involved a single registrant or
a coordinated effort among several registrants, then the Panel would be inclined
to find in favor of Complainant in this URS proceeding. The registration of so
many domain names virtually identical to each other and identical or
confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark would demonstrate targeting
and an effort to sell the Disputed Domain Names to Complainant by forcing
Complainant to make a choice of, on the one hand, abandoning the .xyz space,
and Respondent thereby effectively preventing Complainant from reflecting its
trademark in the .xyz space, or on the other hand buying Respondent’s
portfolio of
<swagbucks--.xyz>
domain names.
This
analysis would not apply if the registrations were random, unrelated events.
On an individual
basis, the Complainant provides insufficient evidence of bad faith for purposes
of the URS.
DETERMINATION
After
reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<swagbucks.xyz><swagbucksbd.xyz><swagbucksbl.xyz><swagbucksbu.xyz><s wagbuckscn.xyz><swagbucksel.xyz><swagbucksex.xyz><swagbucksgg.xyz><s wagbucksie.xyz><swagbucksjd.xyz><swagbuckslh.xyz><swagbuckslr.xyz><swa gbuckslw.xyz><swagbucksmj.xyz><swagbucksnk.xyz><swagbucksqv.xyz><swa gbucksqz.xyz><swagbucksra.xyz><swagbucksrs.xyz><swagbuckssc.xyz><swag buckssl.xyz><swagbuckssm.xyz><swagbuckssn.xyz><swagbucksss.xyz><swag bucksti.xyz><swagbuckstx.xyz><swagbucksun.xyz><swagbuckswz.xyz><swagb ucksyv.xyz>
(collectively the “Disputed Domain Names,” or individually “Disputed Domain
Name” when used in connection with one of them)
Kendall C. Reed, Examiner
Dated: May 11, 2022
