URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Sprux LLC v. WhoisGuard, Inc. et al.
Claim Number: FA1808001799700


DOMAIN NAME

<sprux.host>
 <sprux.pro>
 <sprux.xyz>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Sprux LLC of Carson City, NV, United States of America
  

   Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. WhoisGuard, Inc. of II, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotHost Inc.,Afilias plc,XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: Namecheap,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.
   Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: August 2, 2018
   Commencement: August 7, 2018
   Default Date: August 22, 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: The Complainant has operated as provider of server hosting and related products since 2003 with claim to use in commerce of "SPRUX" mark since 2006.

  

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:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The disputed domain names <sprux.host>, <sprux.pro> and <sprux.xyz> are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark SPRUX. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of generic or descriptive terms, such as “host”, “pro” and “xyz”, indicating the purpose of offering SPRUX related services. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark SPRUX. No evidence was submitted by Respondent to prove that he is commonly known as SPRUX. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in SPRUX and the disputed domain names, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Since Complainant’s trademarks are prior to the disputed domain names’ registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain names was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain names, <sprux.host> and <sprux.pro> are designed to attract users to its websites where it impersonates Complainant. On the other hand, <sprux.xyz> resolves to a pay-per-click site. Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. sprux.host
  2. sprux.pro
  3. sprux.xyz

 

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: August 24, 2018

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page