URS FINAL DETERMINATION

Man Socks Italia S.R.L v. Ayako Nakamura et al.
Claim Number: FA1511001647952

DOMAIN NAME

<thinkpink.today>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Man Socks Italia S.R.L of Castiglione delle Stiviere (MN), Italy
	Complainant Representative: Howson & Howson LLP William Bak of Blue Bell, PA, USA

	Respondent: Ayako Nakamura Ayako Nakamura of Himonya Meguro, Tokyo, II, Japan

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Pearl Woods, LLC
	Registrars: Key-Systems LLC

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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: November 23, 2015
	Commencement: November 24, 2015
	Response Date: December 10, 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: [OptionalComment]

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 record makes clear that “the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use,” and that the registration is identical to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Respondent's defense that he needed to use the name for a blog-based personal website does not constitute a legitimate right or interest, and therefore is not a valid defense.

[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 Respondent

Complainant contends that Respondent should have received a warning about the fact that THINK PINK is a registered trademark, yet the disputed domain name obtained by Respondent. It submits that this should be considered as potential evidence of bad faith. Complainant is concerned about that Respondent is or may use the mark in relation to the fashion or apparel industry. However, the Complainant’s mere assertion and concern above do not convince this Examiner by clear and convincing evidence that the Registrant the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith given the circumstance that Respondent denies the registration and use of 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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

thinkpink.today

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: December 14, 2015

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page