National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the United States of America v. Syrtronics et al.
Claim Number: FA1905001844520
Complainant: National Council of Young Men's Christian Associations of the United States of America of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Partridge Partners P.C. of Chicago, Illinois, United States of America.
Respondent: Syrtronics of New York, New York, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Afilias Limited; Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 22, 2019
Commencement: May 23, 2019
Default Date: June 7, 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").
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain names be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
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.
[URS 1.2.6.1.] 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 Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of U.S. trademark registration no. 1549218 YMCA, which was registered on July 25, 1989 covering various goods and services in classes 25 and 41 as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s YMCA Mark. 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 the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are identical to the Complainant’s YMCA Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain names.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not authorized by the Complainant to use the YMCA Mark and has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. In fact, the disputed domain names are used to forward Internet users to the website available at www.vcny.org, which uses the Complainant’s marks for the same core service.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the YMCA Mark is well-known and famous and that the Respondent must have been aware of the YMCA Mark and also received notice of the YMCA Mark when registering the disputed domain names via the Trademark Clearinghouse Claims rights-protection mechanism. With regard to bad faith use, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the disputed domain names by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s YMCA Marks, and that the Respondent also registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant.
The Examiner accepts that the Respondent was most likely aware of the Complainant’s highly distinctive and well-established YMCA Mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain names and therefore registered the disputed domain names in bad faith. Such finding is supported by the fact that the website available at the disputed domain names clearly refers to the Complainant’s core business. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the YMCA Mark into the disputed domain names and by using the disputed domain names to forward Internet users to a competing website, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<ymca.bet>
<ymca.network>
Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: June 10, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page