URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1809001806523

DOMAIN NAME

<prudential.app>

PARTIES

	Complainant: The Prudential Insurance Company of America of Newark, NJ, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Partridge Partners PC Mark V.B. Partridge of Chicago, IL, United States of America

	Respondent: none none of none, AL, USA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc.
	Registrars: Go France Domains, LLC

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.
	Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 18, 2018
	Commencement: September 18, 2018
	Default Date: October 3, 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, the Prudential Insurance Company of America, a New Jersey corporation, is the owner of numerous marks worldwide containing or comprising the term PRUDENTIAL including, U.S. Registration No. 0,693,628 (registered on February 23, 1960 to cover goods and services in class 36), which was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Complainant uses the PRUDENTIAL mark its website under <prudential.com> in connection with banking, investment, retirement, insurance and other financial products and services since as early as 1875, and the marks remain in use worldwide today. Complainant contends that the Respondent’s Domain Name, <prudential.app> is identical to the PRUDENTIAL mark, and was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires the 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.

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 Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the PRUDENTIAL mark as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use. The Domain Name fully incorporates the Complainant’s mark and merely adds the extension“.app”. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name . See Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1242639326, FA1805001787216 (finding .APP “irrelevant”). The Examiner finds that the Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has not authorized Respondent’ s use of its mark and has no affiliation with the Respondent. Moreover, the Respondent’s use – an inactive website – is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and is not in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, in the absence of any evidence to support a possible basis on which the Respondent may have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, the Examiner accepts the Complainant’s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and concludes that the second element of paragraph 1.2.6.2. of the URS Procedure is satisfied.

[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

The PRUDENTIAL mark is famous all around the world and has been used for year. Therefore, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark when registering <prudential.app>. The Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name in bad faith. Furthermore, the Respondent is passively holding the Domain Name which itself can be considered as a bad faith use of a domain name. In the light of above, registering a domain name corresponding to a reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, is considered to satisfy the standard set out in paragraph 1.2.6.3. of the URS Procedure.

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:

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:

prudential.app

Piotr Nowaczyk
Examiner
Dated: October 11, 2018

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page