Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Identity Protect Limited

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Citrix Systems, Inc. v. Identity Protect Limited
Claim Number: FA1409001582253

DOMAIN NAME

<citrix.equipment>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Citrix Systems, Inc. Devon Sparrow of Bedford, MA, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Burns & Levinson LLP Deborah J Peckham of Boston, MA, United States of America

	Respondent: Max Levenger of USA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Corn Station, LLC
	Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited

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.
	Vali Sakellarides, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 29, 2014
	Commencement: September 29, 2014
	Default Date: October 15, 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: This proceeding features a sole Complainant regarding the single domain name <citrix.equipment>. No domain names are dismissed from this complaint.
		Multiple Respondents: This proceeding features a sole Respondent regarding the single domain name <citrix.equipment>. No domain names are dismissed from this complaint.

Findings of Fact: Complainant states that it is an industry leader in the development, manufacture and distribution of remote access, collaborative tools, virtual desktop solutions and infrastructure systems. For decades, Complainant has offered products that are used by enterprises and IT professionals around the world to monitor and optimize remote access and remote desktop management. Complainant engages in extensive advertising, including Internet, radio, and print advertising, featuring its name and marks throughout the United States and Canada. As a result of Complainant’s worldwide success and promotional efforts, Citrix and its trademarks are well-known. At least as early as 1990, Complainant adopted and began to use in commerce the designation and trademark CITRIX for and in connection with virtualization software, hardware and related goods and services. Complainant has developed a robust worldwide trademark portfolio, with applications and registrations for the CITRIX trademark in over 50 countries and enjoys a widespread reputation in the world. Continuously since that time, Complainant has used the CITRIX trademark in connection with its products and services. Complainant registered its domain name www.citrix.com on July 22, 1994 which was used to promote its goods and services. On or about March 31, 2014, Complainant sent Respondent a cease and desist letter. In response to Complainant’s cease and desist letter, Respondent offered to sell <citrix.equipment> to Complainant for an amount far above any reasonable documented out-of-pocket expenses in his July 25, 2014 correspondence noting “I would need $8,500 for this domain.”

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 submits evidence of USA trademark registrations and Community trademark registrations of the CITRIX mark. The mark is in current use globally. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <citrix.equipment> is identical to the Complainant’s CITRIX trademark, as the gTLD .equipment is not relevant for a finding under URS 1.2.6.1. Examiner finds that Complainant has established the first element under URS 1.2.6.1(i).

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent has not filed a Response. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered CITRIX trademark. Examiner finds that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <citrix.equipment>.

[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 submits evidence that the domain name <citrix.equipment> resolves to webpage stating “This website is for sale”. Complainant’s CITRIX trademark is registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. When Respondent registered the disputed domain name <citrix.equipment> it would have received a notification that the disputed domain name matched a registered trademark. The Respondent was required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledge Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the disputed domain name <citrix.equipment>. It is clear to this Examiner that Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name. Respondent is not associated or affiliated with Complainant. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that is offering the disputed domain name for sale. Examiner finds that the Complainant has established the element under 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:

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:

citrix.equipment

Vali Sakellarides
Examiner
Dated: October 20, 2014

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page