URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 registered domain name is identical to Complainant's registered IBM word marks. The Examiner notes that Complainant has, erroneously, in the Complaint quoted URS 1.2.6.1 as follows "The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use." Complainant has also, in addition to exhibiting various registration certificates for the word mark IBM, exhibited registration certificates for a stylized version of the IBM mark which, in the Examiner's opinion, do not constitute word mark registrations for the purposes of URS 1.2.6.1. Accordingly, the latter can have no bearing on these proceedings. Complainant appears to be labouring under the misapprehension that the URS procedure applies to non-word trademarks. Complainant has, however, provided evidence of its valid registrations for the IBM word mark, and also relies on the registration of its IBM word mark with the Trademarks Clearinghouse. Accordingly, the first limb of the URS procedure has been made out.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence to demonstrate any legitimate right or interest. Respondent simply asserts that the domain name was registered after the <.lol> sunrise period has expired, and suggests, erroneously, that the use of the registered domain name in China (where Complainant has a strong reputation in its IBM mark) can be of no concern to Complainant.

[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

Complainant's IBM mark is well-known. There can be no question Respondent must have known of Complainant and it's trademark rights when it registered the domain name.

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.

Respondent has alleged 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:

ibm.lol

	Complainant Submitted: October 1, 2015
	Commencement: October 2, 2015
	Response Date: October 14, 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").

	Complainant: IBM Corporation of Armonk, NY, United States of America

	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.
	Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner

	Respondent: ecawen Zhao Chunkai of china, --, China

	Registries: Uniregistry, Corp.
	Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp