SERVICEMASTER BRANDS L.L.C. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1703001720478
Complainant: SERVICEMASTER BRANDS L.L.C., of Burlington, Vermont, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Partridge IP Law P.C., of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc., of Panama
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Silver Cover, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 7, 2017
Commencement: March 8, 2017
Default Date: March 23, 2017
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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant ServiceMaster Brands L.L.C. is a leading provider of residential and commercial cleaning and repair services, with thousands of locations around the world. Complainant owns numerous registrations for the SERVICEMASTER trademark, which mark is currently in use.
The disputed domain name, servicemaster.solutions, resolves to a website advertising Respondent’s cleaning and renovation services.
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.
1. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the SERVICEMASTER mark. As noted by Complainant, the domain name incorporates the SERVICEMASTER mark in full and the addition of the top-level “.solutions” does not distinguish the domain name from the SERVICEMASTER mark. The evidence further indicates that Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration for the SERVICEMASTER mark and that such mark is currently in use.
2. The Examiner determines that Complainant has sustained its burden of establishing that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use the SERVICEMASTER mark and Respondent’s use of the domain name is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
3. The Examiner rules that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Examiner finds that Respondent selected the domain name in an “obvious attempt to trade off Complainant’s name, notoriety, and good will for personal gain by creating a likelihood of confusion for Internet users seeking Complainant’s products and services [which] supports findings of bad faith registration and use.” See Oculus VR, LLC v. Forshan Soulmate Cuture&Media Co., Ltd., NAF 164111. Given the fact that Complainant has used the SERVICEMASTER mark for over 20 years, it is also reasonable to conclude that Respondent was well aware of such mark at the time the disputed domain name was registered. Finally, in view of Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website that offers services that compete with those provided by Complainant, the Examiner finds that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
servicemaster.solutions
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: March 27, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page