Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Examiner considers that the reproduction of the trademark EOS, by the disputed domain name «eos.blackfriday», is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark . Specially since the disputed domain name reproduces entirely Complainant’s trademark without any other distinctive elements. Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain name is the camera manufacturer. In consequence, as per this reasoning, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 1.2.6.1., of the URS Procedure is duly complied with.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

As per the URS requirements, Complainant’s burden of proof has been met, regarding Registrant’s lack of rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name, as Complainant has successfully shown evidence to substantiate its trademark rights, such as, several trademark registrations EOS in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, among others, to identify goods included in international class 9. Moreover, as established in Paragraph 8.3 of the URS Procedure, Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in violation of the URS. Consequently, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name, thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 1.2.6.2., of the URS Procedure is duly complied with.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

According to Subparagraph a) of the Paragraph 1.2.6.3., of the URS Procedure, registering a 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, is indicative of bad faith registration and use. Furthermore, in accordance with Paragraph 5.9.2, of the URS Procedure, a domain name redirecting to a website displaying pay-per-click links does not in and of itself constitute bad faith under the URS. Nonetheless, such conduct may be abusive, as in the current circumstances. Blackfriday is the day after Thanksgiving Day in the United States in which stores and manufacturers offer promotional sales. Hence, it is understood as an expression referring to promotions. Taking that into account, «eos.blackfriday» would attract consumers interested in EOS goods. Moreover, Complainant registered its trademark EOS with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Hence, Respondent was aware of the trademark EOS registered «eos.blackfriday». Thus, the Examiner concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business. Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not fall into the category of bona fide offering of goods or services, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. As per this reasoning, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 1.2.6.3., of the URS Procedure is duly complied with.

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:

1. eos.blackfriday