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.

Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that Respondent’s domain name <codesys.cloud > is substantially identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark CODESYS .

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

Examiner finds that the Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business. Complainant contends that a search has revealed that Respondent possesses no registered trademarks for the term "codesys" in any jurisdiction. Examiner notes that the website in relation to the disputed domain name <codesys.cloud > is inactive.

[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.

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <codesys.cloud> is intended for hosting second level domains providing contents related to computing, software and the like; "CODESYS" is a registered trademark in a number of jurisdictions, chiefly for industrial automation software and controller development systems; it is a distinctive term that has no meaning in conjunction with automation software or the like; Respondent was required to have clicked on the notice “Acknowledge Claim” when presented with the Trademark Claims notice to complete registration of the name; thus, Respondent at the time of registration of the disputed domain name knew of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks and, e.g. by reviewing the English language contents of Complainant’s website "www.codesys.com" readily may have taken notice of active and intensive use of the term "codesys" both as a trademark for the designation of services and goods in relation to automation software and software for industrial controllers, as well as in the form of a second level domain under the TLD.com; and thus, "codesys" has been registered as a second level domain under <codesys.cloud> in bad faith. In the absence of the Response, Examiner agrees that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

codesys.cloud

	Complainant Submitted: October 31, 2018
	Commencement: October 31, 2018
	Default Date: November 15, 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").

	Complainant: 3S-Smart Software Solutions GmbH of Kempten, Germany
	Complainant Representative: VKK Patentanwälte Lars Hoppe of Kempten, Germany

	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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

	Respondent: Hui Cao of Suzhou, Jiaangsu, II, CN

	Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
	Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc.