URS FINAL DETERMINATION

 

MySQL AB v. lv peng et al.

Claim Number: FA1601001657701

 

DOMAIN NAME

<mysql.xyz>

 

PARTIES

Complainant: MySQL AB of Uppsala, Sweden.

Complainant Representative: Holland & Hart LLP of Denver, Colorado, United States of America.

 

Respondent: 鹏 吕 of 天津, China.

 

lv peng of tian jin, tj, International, CN.

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries: XYZ.COM LLC

Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: January 22, 2016

Commencement: January 22, 2016†††††

Response Date: January 24, 2016

 

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.† Because the language of the Response is Chinese, is noted that the Examiner fluently speaks and reads Chinese, in addition to his native English.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

 

Complainant owns the MYSQL mark for database software, management, development and related services and sells more than US$50 million worth of branded products annually.† Complainant owns 58 trademark registrations in 31 jurisdictions, and has continuously used the MYSQL mark since approximately 1996.

 

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:

 

1.    That 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.

 

2.    †That the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name;

 

3.    †That the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Examiner finds that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to Complainantís registered mark, save for the ď.xyzĒ TLD, which is of no relevance.

 

The Respondent alleges in its Response that it purchased the Disputed Domain Name via on-line auction of expiring domain names on 11 January 2016.† Because Complainantís MYSQL mark had been submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse, Respondent received actual notice of Complainantís rights upon its acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name.†

 

The Examiner finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the Complainant has rights to the MYSQL name and that the Registrant has no rights or legitimate interest in the name.†

 

Respondent alleges that it has not attempted to sell or use it, but intends at an unspecified future time to use the domain name in connection with the operation of a blog site where MYSQL users might share their user experiences.† Respondent proffers no credible evidence to support its assertions as to possible future use and provides no evidence of demonstrable preparations to use the Disputed Domain Name in the manner alleged.

 

Significantly, Respondentís unproven allegations as to its intended future use of the Disputed Domain Name establishes beyond doubt that Respondent was aware of Complainants rights to the MYSQL mark at the time it purchased the Disputed Domain Name.†

 

Based on its evaluation of all the evidence, the Examiner infers from Respondentís non-use of the Disputed Domain Name that the domain name was registered or acquired and is being used in bad faith by Respondent for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or a competitor of Complainant.

 

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the partiesí 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 that the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.

 

MYSQL.XYZ

 

 

David L. Kreider Esq, Examiner

Dated:† January 26, 2016

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page