URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Navistar International Corporation v. JiangYuTao

Claim Number: FA1506001626062

 

DOMAIN NAME

<navistar.top>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Navistar International Corporation of Lisle, Illinois, United States of America.

Complainant Representative:  Pattishall, McAuliffe, Newbury, Hilliard & Geraldson LLP of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.

 

Respondent:  JiangYuTao of FoShanShi, International, GuangDong, CN.

Respondent Representative:  

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.

Registrars:  Jiangsu Bangning Science & technology Co. Ltd.

 

EXAMINER

The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

 

Petter Rindforth, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: June 25, 2015

Commencement: June 29, 2015   

Default Date: July 14, 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

 

The Complainant is the owner the following trademark registrations, registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”):

 

No. 1,472,594 NAVISTAR (word), registered on January 12, 1988, and renewed until January 12, 2018, covering services in Intl Class 36

 

No. 1,476,173 NAVISTAR (logo), registered on February 9, 1988, and renewed until February 9, 2018, covering services in Intl Class 36

 

No. 1,498,530 NAVISTAR (word), registered on August 2, 1988, and renewed until August 2, 2018, covering goods in Intl Class 12

 

No. 3,651,780 NAVISTAR (logo), registered on July 7, 2009, covering goods in Intl Class 12

 

No. 4,427,688 NAVISTAR (word), registered on November 5, 2013, covering goods in Intl Class 25

 

The Complainant is also the owner of the following national Canadian Trademark Registrations:

 

No. TMA337095 NAVISTAR (logo), registered on February 12, 1998

No. TMA337494 NAVISTAR (word), registered on February 26, 1988

No. TMA770382 NAVISTAR (logo), registered on June 21, 2010

 

The Complainant has provided evidence of use by a screenshot from the Complainant’s website www.navistar.com.  No. Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case, you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing. No. Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case, you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing.

 

There is no information on the Respondent, other than provided by the Complainant, as the Respondent has not responded.

No. Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case, you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing. No. Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case, you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing.

 

Legal Findings and Conclusion:

 

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.

 

IDENTICAL OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR

 

The Complainant met the standard sets out in 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure since the Complainant has proved its right to the valid trademark registrations, such as the U.S. National Trademark Registration 1,472,594 NAVISTAR (word).

Further, the Complainant has proved that the said trademark is in current use by presenting screenshot from the Complainant’s website.

 

The relevant part of the disputed domain name is <navistar>, as the added top-level domain – being a required element of every domain name – is generally irrelevant when assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar and in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.

 

The Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark NAVISTAR.

 

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS

 

The Respondent does not have any rights in <navistar.top> as the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register a domain name containing its registered and used trademark NAVISTAR, nor is the Respondent commonly known by <navistar.top>.

 

As NAVISTAR is a distinctive and well known trademark, the Examiner also draw the conclusion that the Complainant has shown that the Respondent cannot have any legitimate interests in registering and using <navistar.top> .

 

To summarize, the Examiner find that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in <navistar.top>.

 

BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE

                            

The According to the URS Procedure 1.2.6.3, examples of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:

 

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.

 

In this case, the Complainant has shown that the Respondent, although not traditionally actively using the disputed domain name, it is linked to a page with the message “This page can’t be displayed” thereby creating confusion for customers seeking information on the Complainat’s goods.

 

The Respondent is also known to register and using other’s trademarks in bad faith under the .top TLD, see See LANXESS DEUTSCHLAND GMBH v. JiangYuTao, FA 1621474, Forum of June 18, 2015.

 

Although the Respondent has not responded, the use as such strongly indicates that the Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or the Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the trademark NAVISTAR in a corresponding domain name, as the Respondent is obviously engaged in a pattern of such conduct.

 

Thus, the Examiner concludes that the Complainant has established that the Respondent has registered and used <navistar.top> in bad faith.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.

<navistar.top>

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Examiner

Dated:  July 14, 2015