American Council on Education et al. v. John Rashad et al.
Claim Number: FA1510001640665
Complainant: American Council on Education of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America / GED Testing Service LLC of Bloomington, Minnesota, United States of America.
Respondent: John Rashad of Saint Paul, Minnesota, United States of America.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: Blue Razor Domains, LLC
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.
Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 2, 2015
Commencement: October 29, 2015
Response Date: November 10, 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").
Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
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 is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 2,613,984 GED, which was registered on September 3, 2002 covering “educational testing services” as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s GED Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s GED Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a parking website with sponsored links containing the GED Mark, which redirect Internet users to the goods and services of Complainant’s competitors and, in addition, offers the disputed domain name for sale. The Complainant contends that these activities do not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate non-commercial fair use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent states that it registered the disputed domain name “with the intent to realize value, as three letter acronyms are premium domain designation” and that it “believed the acronym letters G, E, D can be applied across many fields by many businesses.”
Although short domain names might be valuable assets, the mere registration of such domain names does not lead to own rights or legitimate interests for the Respondent. The actual use does not match any criteria set out in the URS Procedure. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant’s GED Mark was validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name. As a result, the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant’s rights and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the GED Mark into the disputed domain name and by using the website at such domain name as a parking website providing links to third parties, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d. The fact that the disputed domain name consists of an acronym which may be applied across many fields by many businesses does not hinder a finding of bad faith as such fact alone does not entitle a domain owner to trade off third parties’ trademarks.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
<ged.online>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: November 16, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page