URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Virgin Enterprise Limited v. N/A et al.
Claim Number: FA1507001627578
DOMAIN NAME
<virgin-atlantic.ooo>
PARTIES
Complainant: Virgin Enterprise Limited of London, United Kingdom | |
Complainant Representative: Stobbs
Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: N/A Ankit Gupta of India, II, India | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: INFIBEAM INCORPORATION LIMITED | |
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. | |
Dawn Osborne, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 8, 2015 | |
Commencement: July 9, 2015 | |
Response Date: July 16, 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] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent does not deny that Complainant owns the registered mark VIRGIN ATLANTIC [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent denies commercial use but does not explain for what purpose he has registered a domain name equivalent to the Complainant's mark in this new gTLD
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant's mark is well known. Without a very good explanation as to why the Domain Name has been registered the Panel can only conclude that confusion is inevitable and that even passive use of a domain name equivalent to the Complainant's famous mark would be bad faith. 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. Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
Respondent has not demonstrated this. He has not put forward an alternative explanation for registration of the domain name in dispute which casts doubt on the assertions of the Complainant.
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:
|
Dawn Osborne
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page