Pelco v.
Claim Number: FA1810001811929
Complainant: Pelco of Clovis, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Nameshield of Angers, France.
Respondent: Sam Atkins of Festac, Lagos, NG.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 16, 2018
Commencement: October 18, 2018
Default Date: November 2, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
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.
The Complainant has is the registered owner of US Trade Mark PELCO, registration number 828528, registered on March 16, 2003 for goods in international class 9. The Complainant consequently has rights in the PELCO mark.
Complainant has furnished clear and convincing evidence that said PELCO trademark is currently in use.
The disputed domain name <pelco.online>, is identical to Complainant’s PELCO mark and the <.online> generic Top Level Domain extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparison.
Respondent, who bears the burden of production has not engaged in this administrative process and therefore has failed to prove that it has any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or to deny Complainant’s assertion that the Respondent has not connection with Complainant’s business; does not carry out any activity using the disputed domain name which resolves to a registrar’s parking page.
There is no reasonable explanation as to why the disputed domain name, which is being passively held, resolving to a registrar’s parking page, was chosen and registered except to reference and take predatory advantage of Complainant’s pre-existing trademark rights. This Panel finds therefore that Complainant has made out a clear and convincing prima facie case that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
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:
<pelco.online>
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: November 03, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page