URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Roofoods Ltd v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1807001795274
DOMAIN NAME
<deliveroo.work>
PARTIES
Complainant: Roofoods Ltd of London, United Kingdom | |
Complainant Representative: Aaron B Newell of London, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, II, PA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited | |
Registrars: NameCheap, 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. | |
Honorable John A. Bender, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 5, 2018 | |
Commencement: July 6, 2018 | |
Default Date: July 23, 2018 | |
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"). |
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: Examiner adopts the factual recitation of complainant as the basis for these findings. |
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.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has established use and registration of the mark "deliveroo" [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has well shown that respondent registered the domain name without permission from Complainant
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Registrant is in bad faith due to the obvious intent to divert business and commercial gain from Complainant, due to likely confusion. 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. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ 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(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Honorable John A. Bender Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page