URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Global Name Services LLP v. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245813856
Claim Number: FA1911001871473
DOMAIN NAME
<dlapiper.associates>
<dlapiper.partners>
PARTIES
Complainant: Global Name Services LLP of Wilmington, DE, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US)
Alberto Zacapa of Washington, DC, United States of America
|
Respondent: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245813856 / Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1245863353 FOR of Toronto, ON, CA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: Google Inc. |
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: November 15, 2019 | |
Commencement: November 18, 2019 | |
Default Date: December 3, 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: There are no multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal. |
Findings of Fact: The Complainant is the owner of the U.S. trademark registration for DLA PIPER, No. 728598, registered on February 27, 2007. The Complainant uses the DLA PIPER mark on its website under <dlapiper.com>. The Complainant asserts that the DLA PIPER mark is well and favorably known throughout the United States and internationally. Further, the Complainant contends that the Respondent�s Domain Names are identical to the DLA PIPER mark, and were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent who has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain 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. |
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 The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the DLA PIPER mark as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use. The Domain Names fully incorporate the Complainant�s mark and merely add gTLDs (�.associates� and �.partners�) which are not relevant for assessing whether a domain name is identical of confusingly similar to a registered mark. Moreover, in the context of the Complainant�s activity in the field of legal services, the above mentioned gTLDs can even increase the likelihood of confusion of the Internet users. The Examiner finds that the Domain Names are identical to the Complainant�s mark 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 states that it has no business relationship whatsoever with the Respondent, in particular it has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the DLA PIPER mark or to apply for any Domain Names incorporating it. 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 Names, the Examiner accepts the Complainant�s unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names 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.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The DLA PIPER mark is commonly known in the legal industry. Therefore, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant's mark when registering the Domain Names which include gTLD associated with the legal services. The Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered the Domain Names in bad faith. In the light of above, the Complainant satisfies 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:
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:
|
Piotr Nowaczyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page