Kensho Technologies, LLC v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA1903001832890
Complainant: Kensho Technologies, LLC of Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Proskauer Rose LLP of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 7, 2019
Commencement: March 7, 2019
Default Date: March 22, 2019
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.
Even though 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.
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is 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.
The evidence shows that Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in use. Further, the Examiner finds that the domain name is legally identical to the trademark and so finds the first element to be established.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
The name of Respondent has been redacted. The Panel is unable to determine whether Respondent might be known by the domain name but in the absence of a Response there is no positive indication that is so. There is no evidence Respondent has trademark rights of its own and Respondent appears to be using Complainant’s trademark and a stylised iteration of the trademark. The screenshot provided of the Respondent’s webpage is in Chinese and so the Panel cannot determine whether there has been use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Without a translation there is no evidence for Complainant’s assertions that the provided screenshot is that of “a member login page” or that “Registrant’s website is a phishing website … to attract and mislead Kensho’s customers and obtain their login information.”
The Examiner finds that Complainant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that Respondent lacks a legitimate right or interest in the domain name and so the Examiner finds that Complainant has not established the second element.
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
For the reasons given, the Examiner finds that Complainant has not provided clear and convincing evidence that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: March 23, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page