Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant owns numerous valid trademark registrations of national effect for its PRINCIPAL service mark. Complainant’s PRINCIPAL mark is also registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Complainant is currently using its PRINCIPAL mark in connection with the services recited in the service mark registrations. These registrations and use evidence Complainant's rights for the purposes of the URS Policy. URS 1.2.6.1(i). The second-level portion of the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS. Although the above is sufficient to establish the required rights under the URS, Respondent notes that the word “principal” is also a dictionary word with several established meanings unrelated to Complainant’s services. The Examiner considers this fact relevant to both the second and third elements of the URS, as discussed below.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

The record shows Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name was to host a webpage containing an HTML link that reads, “This domain name is for sale!,” along with a stock image. Complainant contends in relevant part that, “[r]espondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name as Respondent is merely offering the domain for sale.” Respondent contends that “[the subject domain name] was registered by the Respondent for future development. The website contains a generic image and does not carry any advertisements.” Further, Respondent contends, “Respondent has never contacted the Complainant with any offers to sell or lease the disputed domain.” The URS was enacted with a high burden of proof. The Complainant must establish each element by clear and convincing evidence. URS 8.2. On the facts presented in this case, the issues of whether Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and whether the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, are intertwined. Complainant contends that “[r]espondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name as Respondent is merely offering the domain for sale.” The only probative evidence in this limited record are the link on the website hosted at the domain name which reads “This domain name is for sale!” and Respondent’s statement that “[he] has never contacted the Complainant with any offers to sell or lease the disputed domain. Taken together, this issue tips in favor of Complainant. However, the mark at issue is a dictionary word with several established meanings unrelated to Complainant’s services, and Respondent states that his professional title is “Principal Software Engineer.” The Examiner affords Respondent’s uncontroverted statement it’s appropriate weight, but notes that an Internet search quickly found Respondent’s LinkedIn page which also listed the same title. This fact tips in favor of Respondent. On balance, the facts presented do not convince this Examiner, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

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:

1. principal.guru