Geoffrey, LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Geoffrey, LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1502001605839

DOMAIN NAME

<toysrus.boutique>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Geoffrey, LLC of Wayne, NJ, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Blank Rome LLP Megan E Spitz of Philadelphia, PA, United States of America

	Respondent: Ruben Marques of Alvor, Portimao, USA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Over Galley, LLC
	Registrars: Enom

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.
	Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: February 20, 2015
	Commencement: February 20, 2015
	Default Date: March 9, 2015
	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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: This proceeding features one Complainant and one Respondent. This Complaint relates to the domain name: <toysrus.boutique> No domain names are dismissed from this complaint. The Complainant is a subsidiary of Toys “R” Us, Inc., a leading global retailer of toys, games, and numerous other consumer goods, operating several Toys “R” Us retail websites and over 1,800 stores in 37 countries worldwide. The Complainant is the exclusive owner of the "TOYSRUS" marks, used and registered in the United States and throughout the world for such goods and services and which are among the most recognizable and valuable brands worldwide. The complainant claimed that the domain name is comprised solely of “TOYSRUS,” identical to its widely-known TOYSRUS Trademarks for which Complainant holds numerous valid national and regional registrations worldwide and that are currently in use. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

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 disputed domain name <toysrus.boutique> is identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks TOYSRUS. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademarks TOYSRUS. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as TOYSRUS. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in TOYSRUS and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.

[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 Complainant

Since Complainant’s trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name (identical to a registered trademark) was made on bad faith. The domain name resolves to a click through site. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

toysrus.boutique

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: March 12, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page