URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Virgin Enterprises Limited v. whoisprotection.biz et al.
Claim Number: FA1603001666898
DOMAIN NAME
<virgin-atlantic.work>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom | |
|
Complainant Representative: Stobbs
Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom
|
| Respondent: whoisprotection.biz Domain Admin Admin of Istanbul, NA, II, TR | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Top Level Domain Holdings Limited | |
| Registrars: Isimtescil |
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. | |
| Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: March 22, 2016 | |
| Commencement: March 23, 2016 | |
| Default Date: April 7, 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. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
| Procedural Findings: | ||
| Multiple Respondents: No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal. | ||
| Findings of Fact: The Complainant, Virgin Enterprises Limited, is a well-known company that originated in 1970 and has a variety of businesses. The Virgin Group now comprises over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries. The trademark VIRGIN ATLANTIC is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a reputation as a leading airline company. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC marks around the world. For example, British trademark registration no. 1287264 – VIRGIN ATLANTIC, with the registration date June 28, 1991. This is further supported by the fact that the VIRGIN ATLANTIC name has been submitted and verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse. |
|
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires 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.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant The disputed domain name <virgin-atlantic.work> is identical to the Complainant's VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.work” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1. of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid trademark (Britsh trademark registration No. 1287264). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting verification documents from the Trademark Clearinghouse. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant According to the Complainant’s, the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which resolves to the website with no content. In particular, the Complainant contends that it made several attempts to contact the domain owner in an attempt to reach an amicable solution but no response has been received. In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The disputed domain name was registered long after the VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark which is commonly known all over the word. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the Complainant’s rights. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, constitute bad faith. The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied. 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. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
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:
|
Piotr Nowaczyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page