Interbrand Group v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1605001673323
Complainant: Interbrand Group of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Lewis Silkin LLP of London, United Kingdom.
Respondent: John Treagus of Goomboorian, Australia.
WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, International, PA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: CLUB DOMAINS, LLC; XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 5, 2016
Commencement: May 6, 2016
Response Date: May 19, 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 requests that the domain names be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant claims that Respondents are likely the same or related individuals or entities. Since this claim is not disputed, it is proper for this proceeding to include both domain names and both Respondents.
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.
1.2.6.1. 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 .usURS complaint is filed.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered or is being used in bad faith.
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 finds that the INTERBRAND and BRANDCHANNEL marks are protected trademarks of Complaint’s.
Respondents state they were not aware of Complainant’s marks, they have not used the domain names, and they have offered the domain names to Complainant without cost. The Examiner finds Complainant has not proved bad faith registration and use by clear and convincing evidence.
The Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
Honorable Karl V. Fink (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: May 23, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page