URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. v. Lan Qing Tian
Claim Number: FA1709001748589

DOMAIN NAME

<expressscripts.top>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Express Scripts Strategic Development, Inc. of St. Louis, MO, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: HUSCH BLACKWELL LLP Myers Dill of St. Louis, MO, USA

	Respondent: Lan Qing Tian Lan Qing Tian of cheng du shi, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
	Registrars: Chengdu west dimension digital

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.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 12, 2017
	Commencement: September 13, 2017
	Default Date: September 28, 2017
	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 Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents

Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that they offer a bro ad range of services for patients, physicians, health plan sponsors and pharmaceutical manufacturers. The complainant mentioned that the Complainant and its predecessors in interest use and have registered the mark EXPRESS SCRIPTS in the U.S. and elsewhere. The Complainant asserted that the Complainant or its affiliated entities also own express-scripts.com, and numerous other domains, all used to promote the Express Scripts business and name. The Complainant claimed that the registered domain is identical to the marks which the Complainant owns rights in. The complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name. They had a correspondence with the respondent for transfer the domain name in return of money. This situation shows the bad of the registrant. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

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:
  (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

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word marks EXPRESS SCRIPTS for which the Complainant holds valid national and international registrations and that are in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the EXPRESS SCRIPTS trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the EXPRESS SCRIPTS trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over 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

Even though the Claimant argues that the Respondent has bad faith, the Claimant did not submit any evidence to prove the bad faith. The claimant also needed to submit clear evidence on the usage of the website (such as screen shot of the website) but such evidence was not submitted. When the document named “URS Screen Shot” was reviewed it was seen that instead of “URS Screen Shot” the “ICANN Whois Record” was submitted. On the other hand, even though the Claimant mentioned about a correspondence between the Respondent and the Claimant, they also did not submit such correspondence. In this respect, The Examiner finds that the bad faith of the Respondent is not proven by the Claimant.

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 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:

expressscripts.top

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: October 3, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page