NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM
usRS FINAL DETERMINATION
JCB Co., Ltd. v. JOHNNY LEE et al.
Claim Number: FA1703001723274
DOMAIN NAME
<jcbpay.us>
PARTIES
Complainant: JCB Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan | |
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC
Douglas M Isenberg of Atlanta, GA, United States of America
|
Respondent: JOHN LEE of Flushing, United States of America | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: NeuStar | |
Registrars: GODADDY.COM, 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. | |
David J. Steele Esq., as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: March 23, 2017 | |
Commencement: March 24, 2017 | |
Response Date: April 8, 2017 | |
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under usRS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the .usTLD 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] |
usRS 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.
[usRS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complaint has established rights to a mark pursuant to the policy through multiple registrations of national effect consisting of, or including, “JCB.” The JCB trademark is also registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. Complainant's JCB mark is extensively used in connection with financial services. The subject domain name includes Complainant's JCB mark as the dominant portion of the mark, and merely appends the descriptive term "pay" to the mark. The addition of this descriptive term does nothing to distinguish the subject domain name from Complainant's mark, and indeed further compounds the confusingly similarity as the term "pay" is closely associated with Complainant's financial services. This panel finds the domain name confusingly similar under the Policy. [usRS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent contends that the domain name was registered for use in connection with "... a cashback site. which [sic] in simple terms mean JOIN CLICK BUY PAY into simple terms JCBPAY." Notwithstanding Respondent's assetion, evidence submitted by Complainant shows the domain name used to host a commercial webpage unrelated to the purported "cashback" venture. Specifically, the webpage appears to host a so-called "Your computer is infected" scam page where consumers are alerted that their computers are infected by a virus, that various personal information is being stolen, and they are directed to call a toll free number for assistance. Respondent's actual use of the domain name evidences both that Respondent lacks any legitimate interest in the domain name, and that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith.
[usRS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant 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. Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
Respondent contends the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the usRS process or contains material falsehoods. Respondent's argument is merely copied from its argument regarding regarding why it has a legitimate interest in the domain name. Putting aside that this argument is undermined by Respondent's actual use of the domain name (as discussed above), this argument plainly does not in any way support Respondent's contention that this complaint was abusive or contained material falsehoods. This panel finds no evidence to support Respondent's contention.
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the usRS 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:
|
|
||
David J. Steele Esq., Examiner
Dated: April 11, 2017 |
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page