NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Camshare, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1503001607852
DOMAIN NAME
<camfrog.guru>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Camshare, Inc. of Austin, TX, United States of America | |
|
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
Todd Martin of New York, NY, United States of America
|
| Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, II, PA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: Pioneer Cypress, 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. | |
| Douglas M. Isenberg, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: March 3, 2015 | |
| Commencement: March 4, 2015 | |
| Default Date: March 19, 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
| Findings of Fact: Complainant states that it is "the exclusive owner of the CAMFROG service mark"; that it "has used the [CAMFROG] Mark in connection with video-conferencing and social network services since at least 2003"; that it "owns and operates the well-known website at www.camfrog.com"; that "Respondent has failed to respond to two letters sent by Complainant’s counsel, on Dec. 3 and Dec. 15, 2014"; and that "Respondent’s only use of the Domain Name has been in connection with a nonoperating website." The disputed domain name appears to have been registered on September 28, 2014. |
|
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends, and provides evidence to support, that it "owns several trademark registrations for the [CAMFROG] Mark, including U.S. Reg. No. 2989682, which it registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse." The disputed domain name contains this trademark, and only this trademark, in its entirety in the second-level portion of the domain. Registrant has failed to respond to Complainant's contentions. As a result, the Panel finds that the registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark or which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that 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 contends that “has no legitimate interest in the Domain and has made no use of the Name that could justify this registration”; that “[t]he website at the Domain Name does not load due to an error with Respondent’s hosting service provider”; that “Complainant has granted no license, authorization or permission to Respondent to use the CAMFROG mark or to register or use any domain name incorporating the CAMFROG mark”; that “Respondent is not named or commonly known as CAMFROG”; and that Respondent has no connection to Complainant, its goods or services, nor is there any legal or legitimate basis for Respondent’s use of Complainant’s [CAMFROG] Mark.” Registrant has failed to respond to Complainant's contentions. As a result, the Panel finds that 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.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that “[i]t is well established that the Respondent’s registration and use of the Disputed Domain Name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was and continues to be made in the full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the [CAMFROG] trademark [and] when the Complainant’s trademark… is also registered… where the Registrant is based, and in circumstances where the Respondent did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of the trademark, for such registration and use.” Registrant has failed to respond to Complainant's contentions. As a result, the Panel finds that the domain name 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:
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:
|
Douglas M. Isenberg Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page