A.V.M. Software, Inc. v. PrivacyDotLink 3004345
Claim Number: FA1708001745666
Complainant: A.V.M. Software, Inc., of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C., of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: PrivacyDotLink Customer 3004345, of Seven Mile Beach, Grand Cayman, International.
Respondent Representative: Unrepresented
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Pine Fest, LLC
Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp
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: August 22, 2017
Commencement: August 23, 2017
Default Date: September 7, 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 A.V.M. Software owns the service mark PALTALK, which it has registered in the U.S. and elsewhere in connection with video-conferencing and social network services. The mark has been in use since at least 1999, and remains in use.
Despite having received a “warning notice” from the Trademark Clearinghouse, Respondent registered the disputed domain name paltalk.dating. Respondent is not making any use of the domain name. Respondent attempted to associate the domain name with a parked page provided by “CashParking” but the existing website indicates that “This domain is currently not approved for CashParking.”
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 confusingly similar to Complainant’s PALTALK mark. The domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term “dating.” The evidence also indicates that Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration for the PALTALK mark and that such mark is in current use.
2. There is no evidence that Respondent has a legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name.
3. The evidence supports a determination that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. As noted above, Respondent had actual notice of Complainant’s rights in the PALTALK mark at the time the domain name was registered and is engaged in passive holding of the domain name. As contended by Complainant, “[t]he only possible explanation for Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name is that it was registered by Respondent to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation Complainant has built in the PALTALK mark since its first use to divert traffic intended for Complainant if the Domain Name should ultimately be used, to generate cash payments from the parked site, and/or to sell the Domain Name at a profit to Complainant or a third-party.” See Duck Bites Holdings, LLC v. Christopher Gatley, FA 1555616. Complainant’s contention is buttressed by the use of the term “dating” in the disputed domain name, inasmuch as Complainant uses its PALTALK mark in connection with providing social network services.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration: paltalk.dating
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: September 9, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page