Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhu Jie
Claim Number: FA1711001760252
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Zhu Jie of Hangzhou, International, CN.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .TOP Registry
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn);
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.
Jonathan Agmon, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 29, 2017
Commencement: November 30, 2017
Default Date: December 15, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant, Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, was founded in 1970 and has since expanded into a wide variety of businesses. Complainant now comprise over 200 companies worldwide, operating in 32 countries including throughout Europe and the US. Complainant employ approximately 40,000 people, generating an annual turn-over of 4.6 billion pounds sterling.
Complainant is the owner of Virgin Mobile, a famous telecommunications company with a global brand name.
Complainant owns rights in VIRGIN through trade mark registrations and through having had a validated entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse. The SMD for this entry is 0000003261412946903992-1 (VIRGIN) and 0000003451498183206040-1 (VIRGIN MOBILE).
Complainant is the owner of 149 trademark registrations for the trademark “VIRGIN” and 90 registrations for the mark “VIRGIN MOBILE”. These registrations are in various jurisdictions, among them the EU and the US.
Complainant asserts the following regarding Respondent:
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS 1.2.6.1]: for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS 1.2.6.2].
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] as follows: by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location. Respondent registered the <virginmobile.top> primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent Complainant from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name.
The domain name was directed to an inactive webpage when the complaint was filed and is currently blocked by the .TOP Registry.
Even though 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 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.
Complainant is the owner of 90 trademark registrations for the mark VIRGIN MOBILE, including U.S. Reg. No. 76301009 in international classes 9, 35 and 38.
<virginmobile.top> includes Complainant's mark in its entirety, together with the gTLD ".top".
Determined: Finding for Complainant
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
There is no evidence that Respondent is known as VIRGIN MOBILE. The domain name was directed to an inactive webpage when the complaint was filed and is currently blocked by the Registry .TOP. Complainant has met its burden. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
[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 disputed domain name
registration to 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 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.
It is suggestive of the Respondent's bad faith that the trademark of the Complainant was registered long before the registration of the disputed domain name. In this case, the fame of the Complainant’s VIRGIN trademark also suggests that there is no plausible good faith use to which the disputed domain name may be put to. The disputed domain name registration has prevented the complainant from reflecting their mark in a corresponding domain name. Given the notoriety of the Complainant’s VIRGIN trademark, the fact that it was registered long before the disputed domain name was registered, the failure of the Respondent to use the disputed domain name, to respond to letters sent to him and to respond to the complaint, the Panel draws the inference that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
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.
1. <virginmobile.top>
Jonathan Agmon, Examiner
Dated: December 20, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page