URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Timex Group USA, Inc. v. Private person 11718 et al.
Claim Number: FA1505001619668
DOMAIN NAME
<timex.boutique>
<timex.center>
<timex.company>
<timex.gallery>
<timex.international>
PARTIES
Complainant: Timex Group USA, Inc. of Middlebury, CT, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
Todd Martin of New York, NY, United States of America
|
Respondent: Private person 11718 Jurij Marchenko of Kiev, II, UA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Over Galley, LLC,Tin Mill, LLC,Silver Avenue, LLC,Sugar House, LLC,Wild Way, LLC | |
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com |
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. | |
David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: May 15, 2015 | |
Commencement: May 22, 2015 | |
Default Date: June 8, 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: [OptionalComment] |
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 Respondent registered five domain names, each of which is identical to Complainant’s registered TIMEX trademark, after receiving notice of Complainant’s rights in the mark, and despite having no legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Respondent has not used the domain names in connection with active websites. Such passive holding is a bad faith use of the Domain Names. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has never granted any license or other permission to Respondent to use the TIMEX mark nor has Respondent been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the TIMEX mark. Respondent is not named or commonly known as “Timex” nor is there any evidence to show that Respondent sells TIMEX watches or other merchandise.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant As is noted above, because the TIMEX trademark is registered with the TMCH, when Respondent attempted to register the five domain names that are at issue in this dispute: Timex.gallery, timex.international, timex.company, timex.center and timex.boutique (the “Domain Names”) he would have received “a warning notice” from the TMCH with each one, as part of its Trademark Claims service. Despite having received this notice, Respondent proceeded with his registration of each of the Domain Names, fully aware that his registrations conflicted with Complainant’s TIMEX trademark registration.Moreover, the Respondent is not using the Domain Names in connection with active websites. Passive inactivity with respect to a domain name is considered to be in bad faith. Passive holding of a domain is even more likely to be considered in bad faith when Respondent’s registration of the domain also prevents the mark owner from reflecting its mark in a corresponding domain name, as is the case here. 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:
|
David L. Kreider Esq, Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page