Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhang Tian Li
Claim Number: FA1612001707288
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Zhang Tian Li of Maanshan, Anhui, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
Registrars: Bizcn.com, Inc.
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.
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: December 14, 2016
Commencement: December 15, 2016
Default Date: December 30, 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 name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Procedural Findings:
This complaint and findings relate to the single domain <virginatlantic.top>. No multiple Complainants or Respondents are involved in this proceeding. No domain names are dismissed from this complaint.
Findings of Fact:
The complaint at hand refers to the registration of the domain name <virginatlantic.top> registered by Zhang Tian Li being the Respondent in the case.
The Complainant states that, since its establishment in 1970 the Complainant’s VIRGIN group has expanded to over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries including throughout Europe and the USA, employing over 40,000 people and generating an annual turnover of 4.6 billion pounds.
Complainant established the VIRGIN ATLANTIC in 1984, which currently carries over 4 million passengers a year with the company turnover £ 2.58 billion in 2013 and had a marketing spend of £ 53, 738, 000 in 2014.
Complainant submits that it is the owner of rights in VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC registered trademarks and have a validated entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of the same. In addition, Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally.
According to the Complainant, the domain <virginatlantic.top> is at least identical to the marks which the Complainant owns rights in. The domain does not resolve to any live content.
Complainant made several attempts to contact the domain owner so to reach an amicable solution. In its turn, Respondent did not provide a response to the complaint in accordance with the URS rules of procedure.
Complainant submits that bearing in mind the extent and nature of the Complainant’s reputation in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC brands, it is difficult to find reason to believe that the disputed domain name was registered for any reason other than to sell it to the Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documents out of pocket costs.
Furthermore Complainant submits that Respondent is clearly aiming to disrupt Complainant’s business through the registration of a domain name which contains Complainant’s famous brand contrary to and the disputed domain name registration has prevented Complainant from reflecting its famous mark in the domain name.
Finally, Complainant submits that by using Complainant’s famous brand, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract increased traffic to the site to which the disputed domain name resolves.
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.
Identical or confusingly similar (URS 1.2.6.1.)
The Examiner finds that the domain name <virginatlantic.top> fully incorporates the Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC marks.
Complainant has furnished evidence of its ownership of the VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademarks which was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the new gTLD “.top” is of no consequence here.
The Examiner finds that the domain name <virginatlantic.top> is identical to the Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC marks under URS 1.2.6.1.
No rights or legitimate interests
The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the VIRGIN ATLANTIC name as the WHOIS record for the <virginatlantic.top> domain name lists “Zhang Tian Li” as the domain name registrant, whereas VIRGIN ATLANTIC is known in respect of the Complainant whose corporate name incorporates VIRGIN name.
It is assumed from the complaint that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark in a domain name or otherwise.
According to the Complainant, 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.
Bad faith registration and use
According to the WHOIS records, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 11, 2016 that is long after the Complaint’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark was first registered and when the mark obtained the high degree of awareness among the public. 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.
Based on the above cumulative circumstances the Examiner finds such behavior to evidence Respondent’s bad faith registration and use under URS 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that the complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<virginatlantic.top>
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, Examiner
Dated: December 30, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page