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:
  (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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s domestic and internationally registered trademark "SUPERCLUSTER" which the Complainant first registered and has continuously used since at least as early as 2013.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Respondent

Complainant contends that Registrant is not using the Domain Name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead the domain name is being offered for sale and does not resolve, but does deploy malware. Registrant indicates he does not plan to sell the disputed domain name and indicates a valid reason for his inability to remove the information regarding the past offer. Registrant denies Complainant's allegations regarding malware and offers a plausible explanation for the failure of the domain name to resolve based on the present proceedings and plans for future usage. Registrant also indicates the use of the domain name for a writing project at a recognized educational institution in an advertised program of study. The Panel finds that the Registrant has proposed a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were 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.

Determined: Finding for Respondent

Complainant contends that Registrant’s primary purpose for registering the mark was for resale. Complainant also asserts that Registrant's registration and use are motivated by a desire to disrupt Complainant's business. Registrant denies such motives and asserts registration and usage of the domain name in a generic fashion for educational purposes. The Panel finds that Registrant did not acquire the domain for the primary purpose of resale and that the registration and use is not in bad faith. Complainant's mark is fanciful and distinct in regards to computers but is merely descriptive regarding astronomy and cosmology. Superclusters are found in space and have been part of the common vernacular relative to space discussion since the early 20th century. Use of superclusters in connection with space does not indicate that Registrant is any way acting in bad faith per Complainant's computer business. Complainant's assertions that its business is worldwide and therefore Registrant must have registered the .space domain name in recognition of the scope of Complainant's business is logically inconsistent. Complainant’s business may be worldwide but it is not out of this world. Procurement of a trademark for a common term does not preclude others from using the term in its common manner.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

The Panel finds there is insufficient evidence to conclude there was any abuse of the proceedings or material falsehoods in the filing. Complainant’s policing of its mark is not abuse and the mere fact that the domain name is allegedly directed to a domain name parking service does not automatically mean the Registrant has no further responsibility for any negative repercussions related to the domain names resolution.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

supercluster.space

	Complainant Submitted: February 3, 2016
	Commencement: February 3, 2016
	Response Date: February 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").

	Complainant: Oracle International Corporation of Redwood City, CA, United States of America

	Respondent: N/A Andres Conteris of Oakland, CA, United States of America

	Registries: DotSpace Inc.
	Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

	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.
	Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: Multiple Complainants: There are no multiple Complainants. No domain names are dismissed from the complaint.
		Multiple Respondents: Multiple Respondents: There are no multiple Respondents. No domain names are dismissed from the complaint.