NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1402001545839
DOMAIN NAME
<virginaustralia.holdings>
PARTIES
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of Geneva, Switzerland | |
Complainant Representative: Stobbs
Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: RGG Domains Rod Griffiths-Green of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: John Madison, LLC | |
Registrars: Godaddy 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. | |
Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: February 27, 2014 | |
Commencement: February 27, 2014 | |
Default Date: March 14, 2014 | |
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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 Complainant is Virgin Enterprises Limited, a company responsible for the ownership, management and protection of all trademarks and Intellectual Property in the Virgin name. The Virgin Group started its activities in 1970 in the field of selling music records and it currently includes over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries including throughout Europe and the USA, not only in the music field but in different areas. The Complainant owns trademark VIRGIN AUSTRALIA in Australia (Registrations No. 1344456, 1420517, 1523585 and 1344456) and other countries. VIRGIN AUSTRALIA name has been submitted and verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse (the SMD for this entry is 3301386999381515-1). 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. |
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 “<virginaustralia.holdings>” is identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks VIRGIN AUSTRALIA. 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 VIRGIN AUSTRALIA. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as VIRGIN AUSTRALIA. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in VIRGIN AUSTRALIA 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 trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name’s registration Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name (identical to a registered trademark) was made on bad faith. The domain name resolves to a click through site. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract 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