URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP v. Halil Emre Erceylan, et al.
Claim Number: FA1503001608655
DOMAIN NAME
<pwc.accountants>
PARTIES
| Complainant: PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP Tish Andrewartha of London, United Kingdom | |
|
Complainant Representative: Cyveillance of Reston, VA, United States of America
|
| Respondent: Halil Emre Erceylan Halil Emre Erceylan of Hoorn nh, II, NL | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Knob Town, LLC | |
| Registrars: Tucows Domains, Inc. |
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. | |
| Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: March 9, 2015 | |
| Commencement: March 10, 2015 | |
| Default Date: March 25, 2015 | |
| Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the 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: Complainant is a provider of accounting, assurance, tax and advisory services. The Complainant uses its PwC brand in connection to these services. The PwC sign is registered as a Community trade mark by PwC Business Trust. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on February 1, 2015. The disputed domain name has been used to redirect to third party websites. When examining this case, the disputed domain name was used to redirect to a webpage containing links to third party accounting firms. 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. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant shows that PwC Business Trust is the holder of a valid community trade mark registration in the PwC trade mark and that the trade mark is in current use. Complainant has developed its business under the PwC trade mark. Although the PwC trade mark is registered by PwC Business Trust, Complainant’s activities show that Complainant is authorized to use and develop the PwC trade mark. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name <pwc.accountants> is identical to the PwC trade mark in which Complainant has rights. Therefore, Examiner finds that the first element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.1 has been proven. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered PWC trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as PWC or under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in PWC and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent is using the disputed domain name to redirects to a webpage containing links, some of which refer to competitors of Complainant. Redirecting the domain name to a website can be an indication of bad faith as such when it is done for commercial gain (See VistaPrint USA, Inc. v. Electric Attic, NAF Case No. 1258624; Sports Auth. Mich., Inc. v. Internet Hosting, NAF Case No. 124516). This is almost certainly the case when the domain name is used to redirect to direct competitors of the Complainant. Respondent also failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Rules. It is inconceivable to this Panel that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and the PwC trade mark when it registered the disputed domain name which is identical to the PwC trade mark. Therefore, Examiner finds that the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven. 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:
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:
|
Flip Jan Claude Petillion Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page