Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The disputed domain name incorporates the LETGO trademark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term “gifts” and the gTLD suffix <.win>, neither of which being relevant for the assessment whether the disputed domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to the registered trademark in question. It is therefore found that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “LETGO” trademark.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

According to Complainant, Respondent’s use of the domain name to “incentivize” Complainant’s users to provide their personal information to third parties for marketing purposes by diverting them through Complainant’s chat messages to its own website is not a bona fide or legitimate use. Complainant states that, „Starting six days after the domain was created, letgo users were massively spammed in the app in “waves” of letgo chat messages encouraging them to click on a link using the disputed domain to redeem a free gift card, which was done directly or indirectly by the operator of RewardZoneUSA.com and NationalConsumerCenter.com or its third-party marketing partners (“RZU”).” Complainant further states that they „received numerous complaints and reports from its user-base regarding the chat spam messages encouraging them to click on a link using the disputed domain name as a false pretense of being a reward originating with, or endorsed or sponsored by Complainant.” All this, had it been supported by evidence, would have been sufficient for finding lack of rights and legitimate interests, as well as bad faith. While the evidence on the case record show the contents of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, it is not obvious how the Respondent’s use of the domain name „incentivizes” Complainant’s users to provide their personal information to third parties, particularly how third parties target Complainant’s clients base. Complainant further mentions numerous complaints and reports regarding the “chat spam messages” from Respondent. Presumably, such reports or records of the same should have been available in Complainant’s system. However, no concrete evidence was provided to support these statements. Also, given that the word mark in question is a dictionary term and its use in the disputed domain name is descriptive of the activities of its operator, Complainant must have provided arguments and evidence in support of secondary meaning and reputation associated with the mark. Saying that Respondent knew of Complainant’s mark when it registered the domain name, Complainant alleges that Complainant’s users were massively spammed in their apps. However, the case records do not allow verifying this. The Panel finds that the case would require more thorough review than it is possible under the URS Policy. While this Panel has no reasons to question Complainant’s allegations, it is found that Complainant has not met its burden of proof under the clear and convincing evidence standard provided by the URS Policy.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Given that Complainant failed to meet its burden of proof under the clear and convincing evidence standard, it is found that the requirements of the third element of the Policy have not been satisfied.

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:

1. letgogifts.win