URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Align Technology, Inc. v. Bao Liu
Claim Number: FA1909001862210
DOMAIN NAME
<416invisalign.xyz>
PARTIES
Complainant: Align Technology, Inc. of San Jose, CA, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: CSC Digital Brand Services of Wilmington, DE, United States of America
|
Respondent: Bao Liu Bao Liu of Ha Er Bin Shi, Hei Long Jiang, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC | |
Registrars: CHENGDU WEST DIMENSION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD. |
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. | |
Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: September 15, 2019 | |
Commencement: September 16, 2019 | |
Default Date: October 1, 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"). |
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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: N.A. | ||
Multiple Respondents: N.A. |
Findings of Fact: Complainant owns trademark registrations in China, the United States, and other jurisdictions containing the term INVISALIGN. Founded in March 1997, Complainant is a publicly traded medical device company engaged in the design, manufacture and marketing of the INVISALIGN clear aligners. Complainant�s primary domain names <invisalign.com> and <invisalign.com.cn> have been registered and continuously used since at least as early as May 17, 1999 and June 10, 2011, respectively, to promote Complainant�s products and services. Respondent's domain name was registered on July 28, 2019, which is significantly after Complainant�s registrations of its INVISALIGN trademark anddomain names. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent�s <416invisalign.xyz> domain (the �Domain Name�) can be considered as capturing Complainant's mark in its entirety. Respondent's domain name includes Complainant�s INVISALIGN trademark and simply adds the numbers �416� to the beginning resulting in a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant�s INVISALIGN trademark under URS 1.2.6.1. Complainant has proven this element by clear and convincing evidence. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not commonly known by the Domain Name. Complainant has not permitted or authorized Respondent to use Complainant�s trademark in any manner.The Domain Name�s website directs internet users to a website that features adult content. As such, the Respondent is not using the Domain Name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Use of a Domain Name that is confusingly similar to Complainant�s trademark to link to a website featuring pornographic or adult content evinces a lack of legitimate rights or interests. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the Domain Name under URS 1.2.6.2 Complainant has proven this element by clear and convincing evidence.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent's registration of a Domain Name that incorporates Complainant�s INVISALIGN trademark and adds the numbers �416� to the beginning of this trademark, only to then direct users to a website which features sexually-explicit, pornographic content, supports a finding of bad faith registration and use by Respondent. The only explanation is that Respondent intended to cause confusion and deception by means of the Domain Name. Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor in violation of URS 1.2.6.3c. Complainant has proven this element by clear and convincing evidence. 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:
Complainant presented unopposed evidence of Respondent's registration of a domain name that fully incorporated Complainant's mark. Although not required for these proceedings it is noted that Complainant's mark was registered in Respondent's jurisdiction and Complainant owned registered domain names featuring its mark as well. Respondent's registration of the disputed domain took place well after Complainant's various registrations. These proceedings are the proper way to address such matters.
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:
|
Darryl C. Wilson Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page