NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Mcgraw Hill Financial, Inc. v. farris nawas
Claim Number: FA1404001554566


DOMAIN NAME

<mcgraw-hill.careers>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Mcgraw Hill Financial, Inc. Susan Winter of New York, NY, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Proskauer Rose LLP Jenifer d Paine of New York, NY, United States of America

   Respondent: farris nawas of Austin, TX, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: CAREERS Registry
   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.
   Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: April 16, 2014
   Commencement: April 17, 2014
   Default Date: May 2, 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 has rights to a very well known trademark.

  

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 


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant cites well-known UDRP cases to the effect that “it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the [D]omain [N]ame by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.” Telestra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Case No. D2000-0003; Jupiters Limited v. Aaron Hall, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Case No. D2000-0574; Ladbroke Group Plc v. Sonoma International LDC, WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center Case No. 2002-0131 Respondent does not reply, that is, he does not present any arguments to explain what might be a legitimate use of the Complainant's well known mark.


[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 


Complainant alleges, and provides evidence to the effect, that Respondent has registered numerous domain names that are similar to well-known marks. According to Complainant, it is clear that the Domain Name was acquired primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration(s) to Complainant for valuable consideration. Respondent did not reply and thus provides no explanation for his use of the Complainant's well known mark.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. mcgraw-hill.careers

 

Richard W. Hill
Examiner
Dated: May 4, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page