NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


RMIT University v. Byron Ventures Pty Ltd
Claim Number: FA1407001571371


DOMAIN NAME

<rmit.education>


PARTIES


   Complainant: RMIT University Jeremy Cotton of Melbourne, Australia
  
Complainant Representative: RMIT University Karen A Lewis of Melbourne, Australia

   Respondent: Byron Ventures Pty Ltd of Bradbury, NSW, II, AU
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Brice Way, LLC
   Registrars: Crazy Domains FZ-LLC Dreamscape

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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 24, 2014
   Commencement: July 24, 2014
   Default Date: August 8, 2014
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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]

  

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.


[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the 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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The record makes clear that “the Complainant holds a valid national or international registration and that [it] is in current use,” and that the registration is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 


Complainant failed to submit clear and convincing evidence to make a prima facie case for the second element of URS.The absence of any evidence does not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[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 domain name registration to the 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 the 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.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 


Complainant failed to bring any evidence for the third element of URS. The absence of any evidence does not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.


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.

The Examiner finds as follows:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. rmit.education

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: August 10, 2014

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page