URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. Jose Garibay
Claim Number: FA1510001641411

DOMAIN NAME

<terminix.lat>

PARTIES

	Complainant: THE TERMINIX INTERNATIONAL COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP of MEMPHIS,, TN, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Partridge & Garcia P.C. Mark V.B. Partridge of Chicago, IL, United States of America

	Respondent: Jose Fernando Garibay of Cancun, Quintana Roo, II, MX

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: ECOM-LAC Federaciòn de Latinoamèrica y el Caribe para Internet y el Comercio Electrònico
	Registrars: Akky una division de NIC Mexico

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: October 7, 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: The Complainant, The Terminix International Company, is the owner of the trademark TERMINIX, U.S. Registration Nos. 1,404,366, verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse. Complainant uses the mark TERMINIX in connection with termite and pest control services in the United States and Mexico as early as 1927. The Respondent registered the domain name terminix.lat which includes Complainant’s mark. 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.

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 <terminix.lat> is identical to the Complainant’s Trademarks TERMINIX. The addition of the new gTLD “.lat” does not have any impact on the overall impression provided by the mark TERMINIX. 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 TERMINIX. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as TERMINIX. There is no evidence that the Registrant is making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the domain name since the website is not leading to an active website. 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. Furthermore, Respondent registered the disputed domain name despite having received a notification stating that the domain name matches a trademark registered in the TMCH. The circumstances of the matter demonstrate that the Registrant registered the domain name in order to prevent the Complainant from reflecting their trademark in a corresponding domain name. Finally, the domain does not lead to any active website. The Registrant therefore does not show bona fide offering of goods or services. 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:

terminix.lat

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: October 27, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page