Weight Watchers International, Inc. v. ashok ashok et al.
Claim Number: FA1803001775858
Complainant: Weight Watchers International, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Weight Watchers International, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: ashok ashok of vizag, International, IN.
Respondent Representative: «No Known» «No Known» «No Known»
Other than Above
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: United TLD Holdco Ltd.
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits here as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 14, 2018
Commencement: March 15, 2018
Default Date: March 30, 2018
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum 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.
Even though Respondent 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 TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant proved its right to the valid U.S. trademark registrations No.1,395,251 and Service mark 518,721 first used in commerce 1-8-1962, registered 5-27-1986, covering educational services, namely conducting seminars and group instruction in the field of dietary management, entertainment services namely production of audio/visual programs consisting of interviews, recipes, and exercise demonstrations in class 41 (U. S. CL 107), along with registrations for providing dietary advice and/or dietary counseling services in class 42 (U. S. CL 100) and family of marks including 715,515, 903,957 worldwide, trademarks that are in current use.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is Weight Watchers and the descriptive term “news,” which does not distinguish the domain name from Complainant’s protected mark but makes the disputed domain name confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected mark. The Examiner finds that the addition in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected -- mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure since Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing this domain name and holding it passively under a promised intent to not use it for commercial gain but perhaps to make some unknown type of “personal” use for which Respondent has shown neither a plan nor expenditures for development. Further, Examiner found no Response from Respondent and whether or not Respondent has or had some elusive intent to sell the disputed domain name at the time of purchase, such elusive intents and promises are not bona fide use and/or a legitimate interest in a disputed domain name containing another’s protected mark.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page. See Complaint, paragraph 7.
Complainant’s trademark rights are on file with the Trademark Clearing House and are registered worldwide, Respondent had such constructive notice of Complainant’s rights and passive holding of the domain name, that would support findings of bad faith registration and use and/or passive holding.
The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and used and/or passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it did NOT contain material falsehoods, based on information provided to the Examiner.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant 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.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: April 1, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page