NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS FINAL DETERMINATION


Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC et al.
Claim Number: FA1410001585319


DOMAIN NAME

<virginatlantic.flights>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited Victoria Wisener of London, United Kingdom
  
Complainant Representative: Stobbs Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Respondent: First Groshev of San Francisco, United States of America
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Fox Station, 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.
   Rodney C. Kyle, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 17, 2014
   Commencement: October 17, 2014
   Response Date: October 27, 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: [OptionalComment]

  

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 prevails through URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 element (i), the word mark being VIRGIN ATLANTIC. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1. More particularly, on the one hand, Complainant submits, by contentions and evidence, and the Examiner finds, that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s valid and nationally or regionally registered word mark which is in current use as validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse. On the other hand, the Response neither puts in issue Complainant’s URS Procedure 1.2.6.1 contentions nor provides any evidence.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant prevails through URS Procedure 1.2.6.2. There is no genuine issue of material fact as to URS Procedure 1.2.6.2. More particularly, on the one hand, Complainant submits, by contentions and sufficient evidence (including evidence that the domain name resolves to a parking page bearing travel-related links, including but not limited to a link offering airline tickets), and the Examiner finds, that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. On the other hand, the Response’s legitimacy contentions are general contentions as to being a consolidator travel agency specializing in selling airline flights, such as flights on Virgin Atlantic Airline, and as to preparing to use the domain name in connection with what the Response apparently contends would be a bona fide offering of goods or services, rather than being contentions as to disproving Complainant’s URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 contentions (e.g. rather than being Response contentions of being associated or affiliated with Complainant in some way and of having registered the disputed domain name with Complainant authorization, such as in accordance with an express term of a written agreement entered into by the disputing Parties and that is still in effect); and, in any event, the Response’s legitimacy contentions are not evidenced.


[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 prevails through URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 sub factor (d). There is no genuine issue of material fact as to URS Procedure 1.2.6.3. More particularly, on the one hand, Complainant submits and the Examiner finds, that by application of the Complainant’s above-mentioned contentions and evidence, URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 sub factor (d) is proven; and, on the other hand, the Response’s submissions as to Respondent lack of bad faith are, at best, the Response’s above-mentioned un-evidenced general contentions. Those above-mentioned un-evidenced general contentions no more avail against Complainant’s case under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 sub factor (d) than under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 and, in any event, the use of the domain name is ultimately the Registrant’s responsibility.


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. virginatlantic.flights

 


Rodney C. Kyle
Examiner
Dated: October 31, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page