Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Business Mobile Airtime Limited et al.
Claim Number: FA1412001593026
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, Unknown, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Business Mobile Airtime Limited of Wolverhampton, United Kingdom.
Business Mobile Airtime Limited of Wolverhampton, International, GB.
Business Mobile Airtime Limited of Wolverhampton, West Midlands, United Kingdom.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dot London Domains Limited
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), sits as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 3, 2014
Commencement: December 3, 2014
Response Date: December 12, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum 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.
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.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant proved its right to some 126 national valid trademark registrations of the VIRGIN, VIRGIN RADIO, VIRGIN SIGNATURE, and other variables of the VIRGIN mark, covering various enterprises in a family of businesses engaged in goods and services, a family of marks registered worldwide, and a trademark that is in current use. First use in commerce goes back to at least September 18, 1979, according to the listing of multiple registrations provided.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is VIRGIN; the added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the geographic addition of LONDON and the descriptive addition of RADIO are all irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark, the additions in this case do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected -- mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure since Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent has acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing this domain name and holding it passively with a stated intent to sell, rent, or transfer it to Complainant. Further Respondent has made no bona fide use by registering and passively holding the disputed domain name in a manner to prevent Complainant from using it and the Examiner presumes such passive holding has an intent to disrupt Complainant’s businesses.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that Respondent admits in the Response that it is holding that the disputed domain name is not being used but is being held passively for sale, rent, or transfer to Complainant. See Response.
The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
Examiner does NOT find allegations that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods and the Examiner finds NO material falsehood and find that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant 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.
Honorable Carolyn M. Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: December 17, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page