Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Jeff Valette et al.
Claim Number: FA1512001650449
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Jeff Valette of Phuket, TH.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NEWS Registry
Registrars: eNom, Inc.
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.
Prathiba M. Singh, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 2, 2015
Commencement: December 3, 2015
Default Date: December 18, 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 domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant claims ownership and rights in the marks VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC through entries made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse and SMD entries 0000003261444217279733-1(VIRGIN) and 0000003381444218179544-1 (VIRGIN GALACTIC). There is one Complainant and one Respondent.
The Complainant also claims significant reputation and vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC names globally. It is claimed that the Virgin Group originated in 1970 and has since expanded into a wide variety of businesses.
The domain names are virgingalactic.news and virgin-galactic.news that are under challenge by the Complainant. Complainant has claimed that the registered domain is identical to the marks which the Complainant owns rights in.
The domain names virgingalactic.news and virgin-galactic.news appear to be locked. This is validated by the email dated 3rd December, 2015 from the Compliance Manager, Right side Registry (a domain name registry) to the NAF confirming that both the said domain names have been put on URS Lock.
The Respondent has not filed a response. Notice of Default has been sent to the Respondent.
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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.
[URS1.2.6.1] The registered domain name is/are 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 has given details of the registration of the marks VIRGIN GALACTIC in New Zealand Q1 nz 17 , VIRGIN GALACTIC and Design in TM Record Community (CTM) Q1 eu3 and eu4 and registration details of the Trademarks VIRGIN and VIRGIN Signature. The trade mark registration certificates have not been filed as supportive evidence. A Perusal of the of the TM view of the website of The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) which registers the Community Trade Mark in the European Union reveals that the mark VIRGIN GALACTIC is registered and valid in the name of the Complainant/Complainant’s Representative.
Thus, though the domain names virgingalactic.news and virgin-galactic.news are confusingly similar to the marks VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC to which the Complainant claims ownership and rights, the Complainant has not filed evidence in the form of certificates to show that it holds a valid national or regional registration.
Further, a scrutiny of the website http://www.virgin.com reveals that the first Virgin website was launched in the 1970’s and that the Virgin Group expanded into various businesses’ thereafter under the Virgin name. A scrutiny of the site also reveals that the Virgin group of companies operate in Europe, Russia, UK, Asia, Middle East, Australia and New Zealand, Africa, South Africa, USA, Canada, Mexico, Latin America, Caribbean in the industries of entertainment, health and wellness, leisure, money, people and planet, telecom and tech and Travel Industries. The combination of Virgin and Galactic is distinctive of the Complainant’s business.
Thus, it is prima facie established that the Virgin group has a vast reputation globally under the mark of Virgin since the 1970s.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Respondent did not file a response and did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trade marks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the marks of which the Complainant claims ownership. There is no indication that the Respondent is related to the Complainants’ several businesses. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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.
There is no evidence of use by the Respondent of the domain names or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods. A perusal of the website occasionally reveals that the site is under construction. There is no legitimate use of the domain name.There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain names.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
NO FINDING OF ABUSE OR MATERIAL FALSEHOOD
The Examiner finds that the Complainant was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. No Response was submitted.
DETERMINATION
Prathiba M. Singh, Examiner
Dated: December 23, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page