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 disputed domain name <newibm.website> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademarks IBM. The addition of the term “new” and the new gTLD “.website” does not have any impact on the overall impression provided by the name “IBM”. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid registration which is in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademarks IBM. No evidence was submitted to prove that Respondent is commonly known as IBM. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in IBM and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. Respondent has alleged that he has not used the domain and he has no intention to sell or transfer it to any other person. He also alleged that he is a “natural” person, not a commercial entity. All these assertions are not enough to prove legitimate interest in the domain. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.

[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 Complainant

Since Complainant’s trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner finds that the registration of the disputed domain name was made to take advantage of this famous mark. Regarding the use of the domain name, it resolves to a click through site. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

newibm.website

	Complainant Submitted: August 17, 2016
	Commencement: August 18, 2016
	Response Date: August 18, 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: IBM Corporation of Armonk, NY, United States of America

	Registries: DotWebsite 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.
	Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

	Respondent: Johnny A Gonzalez of Bogota, Colombia