URS FINAL DETERMINATION


SERVICEMASTER BRANDS L.L.C. v. Dave Chandler et al.
Claim Number: FA1603001667647


DOMAIN NAME

<servicemaster.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: SERVICEMASTER BRANDS L.L.C. of Burlington, VT, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Partridge Partners PC Mark V.B. Partridge of Chicago, IL, United States of America

   Respondent: Dave Chandler Dave of Halifax, NS, Canada
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

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.
   Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: March 28, 2016
   Commencement: March 30, 2016
   Response Date: April 4, 2016
   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 owns rights in the SERVICEMASTER trademark, based on U.S. Registration Nos. 4,305,155, 1,543,875 and 3,176,174 and Canadian Registration No. TMA728721. Complainant has provided evidence of current use of the SERVICEMASTER trademark under U.S. Registration No. 4,305,155, verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse.

  

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 disputed domain name incorporates the SERVICEMASTER trademark in its entirety, adding only the suffix "club" which is not relevant for the assessment whether the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark. The Examiner thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark.


[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 SERVICEMASTER trademark. Using the domain name to display links to Complainant’s competitors and possibly to obtain payperclick revenue is not a bona fide offering of goods and services. In his response, Respondent explains this situation with a mistake of the registrar and thus does not deny that he does not have rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.


[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 


Prior panels have found that using a disputed domain name to resolve to a website displaying links that compete with a complainant indicates bad faith competition and disruption of a complainant’s business. Furthermore, such use can result in misleading Internet users as to the source of the domain and website. Although Respondent denies this fact explaining it by registrar’s mistake, the offering of the domain for sale to resolve the dispute at a cost which apparently exceeds the administrative expense serves yet another evidence of 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:


  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. servicemaster.club

 


Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson
Examiner
Dated: April 8, 2016

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page