URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Virgin Limited v. Cai Rui Qiao et al.
Claim Number: FA1712001764386
DOMAIN NAME
<virginenterprises.group>
<virgin-enterprises.group>
<virginenterprises.ltd>
<virgin-enterprises.ltd>
<virgingalactic.group>
<virgin-galactic.group>
<virgingalactic.ltd>
<virgin-galactic.ltd>
<virgingalactic.top>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom | |
|
Complainant Representative: Stobbs
Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom
|
| Respondent: RuiQiao Cai of Shang Hai, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Romeo Town, LLC,Over Corner, LLC,.TOP Registry | |
| Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) |
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. | |
| Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: December 27, 2017 | |
| Commencement: December 28, 2017 | |
| Response Date: January 9, 2018 | |
| 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
| Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant holds registrations for the word marks VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC (the "Trade Mark(s)") in numerous jurisdictions worldwide, including in China, where Respondent is based. These rights and proof of use of the marks have been acknowledged by validated entries made at the TMCH. Complainant has a significant reputation in the VIRGIN name globally. The Virgin Group (VG) originated in 1970 and now comprises over 60 diverse businesses operating in 35 countries. The VG has an annual revenue of £16.6 billion. VIRGIN GALACTIC is one of the VG businesses with an objective of operating the world’s first commercial space flight. Virgin Enterprises Limited is a member of the VG and is the Virgin brand management/operating business arm of the VG. Each of the disputed domain names is either identical or confusing similar to the Trade Marks. They all incorporate the VIRGIN Trade Mark in its entirety. Many incorporate the VIRGIN GALACTIC Trade Mark in its entirety. The remainder incorporate the VIRGIN Trade Mark in its entirety together with the non-distinctive word "enterprises" which also incidentally describes Virgin Enterprises Limited, the brand management/operating business arm of the VG. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has not provided any evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. Respondent has not been authorised to registered or use the disputed domain names or the Trade Marks. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. None of the disputed domain names has been used. Respondent asserts it registered the disputed domain names not to set up websites in the space travel field, but to set up Internet platforms. There is no evidence of any such Internet platforms having ever been set up or used.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent asserts it has no intention of entering into the commercial space industry; and claims that, as a Chinese national, Respondent is free to register and use the disputed domain names. Respondent asserts that "Virgin", "Enterprises" and "Galactic" are all common words. Respondent also criticises the Complainant's lack of presence in China in the commercial space field. The difficulty Respondent faces in denying bad faith is that Respondent must have been aware of Complainant and of its rights in the Trade Marks at the time of registration of the domain names, by virtue of Complainant's registration of the Trade Marks with the TMCH. The Examiner concludes that Respondent must have known of Complainant and of its rights in the Trade Marks when Respondent registered the domain names. 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. Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
There is simply no evidence to support Respondent's bald assertion that Complainant has engaged in RDNH.
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:
|
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page