Oliver Wyman, Inc. v. farris nawas
Claim Number: FA1404001552908
Complainant: Oliver Wyman, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: farris nawas of Austin, Texas, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: CAREERS Registry
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 7, 2014
Commencement: April 8, 2014
Default Date: April 23, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact:
Complainant, Oliver Wyman, Inc., is a global management consulting firm with 3,000 professionals in 50 cities across 25 countries. Complainant provides evidence of numerous trademark registrations for the mark - OLIVER WYMAN, including U.S. Reg. No. 3,614, and CTM Reg. No. 964,313.
Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent; 1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use 2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2] 3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other online 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.
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
Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for OLIVER WYMAN, including U.S. Reg. No. 3,614, and CTM Reg. No. 964,313.
The domain name includes the Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".carreers".
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
There is no evidence that Respondent is known as OLIVER WYMAN. The domain name resolves to a parking page. Complainant has met its burden. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.
[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 satisfied URS 1.2.6.3 (b) since the Respondent must have known of the Complainant's mark when registering the domain name and the Respondent has registered a large number of domain names comprising other well-known brands.
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:
1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: April 28, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page