URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Oculus VR, LLC v. zhang guo jie
Claim Number: FA1510001641002


DOMAIN NAME

<oculusrift.xyz>
 <oculusvr.top>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Oculus VR, LLC of Menlo Park, CA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP David Taylor of Paris, France

   Respondent: zhang guo jie zhang guo jie of pu tian pu tian shi, FJ, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: XYZ.COM LLC,Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
   Registrars: CHENGDU WEST DIMENSION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.,Chengdu west dimension digital

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.
   Mr. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 6, 2015
   Commencement: October 8, 2015
   Default Date: October 23, 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



   Findings of Fact: Complainant has provided the following initial explanatory text, in its Complaint: “Oculus VR LLC is a virtual reality technology company founded in 2012. Acquired by Facebook in 2014, Oculus has rapidly acquired and developed considerable goodwill and renown worldwide, in connection with virtual reality game software and apparatus, including headsets and helmets. Oculus Rift is a virtual reality head mounted display which has gained considerable notoriety worldwide. Oculus' main website is available at www.oculus.com.” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) the print-screens of Proof of the use for both trademarks; (2) the Domain Names’ websites screenshots; and (3) the Complainant’ trademarks record (WIPO). Respondent has not provided its 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:
  (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 


Complainant has proven that he owns registered trademarks “OCULUS RIFT” and “OCULUS VR”. The Domain Names reproduce these trademarks and are similar. Also, the new gTLDs “.TOP” and “.XYZ” does not reduce the similarity with the Complainant' trademarks. Therefore, the registered Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a word marks for which the Complainant holds valid registrations, which are 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 proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use his trademarks.


[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 


Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. It can be confirmed, that complainant' trademarks and products have "incredible amount of notoriety and industry buzz" (see NAF Claim Number: FA1506001625898). Complainant has proven that the trademarks have been used since 2012. Furthermore, Respondent must have been aware of these trademarks (and products) at the time of the registration of the Domain Names. He must also have known that the registration of the Domain Names was in bad faith. Moreover, the Respondent has prevented the Complainant from using/reflecting its trademarks in a corresponding Domain Names (Complainant has pointed on other disputable registrations of famous string in Complainantπ’s portfolio).In conclusion, passive possession of identical Domain Names consisting of protected word marks and without any manifest proof of purpose towards commercial benefit, can't represent a good faith use under overall circumstances presented in this case.


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 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:

  1. oculusrift.xyz
  2. oculusvr.top

 

Mr. Tomáš Abelovský
Examiner
Dated: October 25, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page