William S Hein & Co., Inc. v. Jennifer Moore
Claim Number: FA1606001678899
Complainant: William S Hein & Co., Inc. of Getzville, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Kyle Daving
Respondent: Jennifer Moore of Phoenix, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative: «Jennifer» «Unknown» «Moore»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge, she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Examiner.
Complaint submitted: June 9, 2016
Commencement: June 10, 2016
Default Date: June 27, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum 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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Even though the Respondent 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.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant proved its right to the valid U.S. trademark registrations No. 3,461,549, first used in commerce May 32, 2000, covering an online computer database in the field of legal and law related research, a trademark that was confirmed to be in current use.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is HEINONLINE; any added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the alphabetic addition being both irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark, the additions in this case do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected HEINONLINE mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure since Complainant did not authorize Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing this domain name and holding it passively under any promised intent to use or not to use it for commercial gain but perhaps to make some unknown type of “personal” use for which Respondent has shown neither a plan nor expenditures for development. Further, Respondent filed no Response and is in default. Elusive promises arising from the mere purchase do not a bona fide use make and they do not create legitimate interest in a disputed domain name containing another’s protected mark without permission.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that the disputed domain name results from Respondent’s appropriation of the HEINONLINE mark as well as Complainant’s owner’s personal name without permission, license, or rightful claim to do so. The domain name alone permits an inference that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in its mark and name; the disputed domain name encourages domain name registration, similar to a parked page. See Complaint, page 2, Explanatory Note. Complainant also urges that the disputed domain name is calculated to disrupt Complainant’s research services and to confuse Internet users as to the source and sponsorship of the domain name. See Complaint, page 2, Explanatory Note.
The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and parked or passively held the disputed domain name in bad faith; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
FINDING OF NO ABUSE nor MATERIAL FALSEHOOD
The Examiner independently finds that that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that, to the Examiner’s knowledge, it did NOT contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Honorable Carolyn M. Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: June 28, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page