URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Pinterest, Inc. v. whoisprotection.biz
Claim Number: FA1504001613642
DOMAIN NAME
<pinterest.black>
PARTIES
Complainant: Pinterest, Inc. Henry Lien of San Fransisco, CA, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Baker & McKenzie LLP
Ruth Burstall of London, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: whoisprotection.biz Domain Admin Admin of Istanbul, NA, II, TR | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Afilias Limited | |
Registrars: FBS Inc. (R551-LRMS) |
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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: April 9, 2015 | |
Commencement: April 9, 2015 | |
Default Date: April 24, 2015 | |
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"). |
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: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants. | ||
Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that the registrant has registered the disputed domain name despite having no affiliation or connection to the Complainant and its subsidiaries. The Complainant asserted that the registrant has done so primarily for the purpose of selling the domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant for valuable consideration. The Complainant also claimed that this situation is evidenced by the screenshot of the website in question, which shows an offer to sell the domain for USD 100,000. The Complainant claimed that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.The Respondent provided no response to the complaint. |
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 It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “PINTEREST” for which the Complainant holds valid national registration and that are in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “PINTEREST” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “PINTEREST” trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. Besides, the Respondent has proceeded to register and use the domain name in order to attract intentional commercial gain from the Complainant or a competitor of the Complainant by way of selling the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name 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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page