URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Data Protected
Claim Number: FA2001001878734


DOMAIN NAME

<fticonsulting.tech>


PARTIES


   Complainant: FTI Consulting, Inc. of Bowie, MD, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: Data Protected Data Protected of Kirkland, WA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Personals TLD Inc.
   Registrars: eNom, 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.
   Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: January 13, 2020
   Commencement: January 14, 2020
   Default Date: January 29, 2020
   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



   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]

  

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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark 'FTI CONSULTING.'


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that because Complainant owns exclusive rights in the FTI marks, and has numerous United States federal registrations therefor, Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; and Respondent is purportedly using the disputed domain name to direct users to an inactive website that does not contain any content. Examiner finds that such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; and inactive use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. Whois information lists Respondent as �Data Protected,� and there is no record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner concludes in the absence of Response that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.


[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant contends that by creating confusion through its registration and use of a domain name wholly comprised of and identical to the FTI marks, Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to Respondent�s website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the FTI marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent�s website; therefore Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Examiner notes Complainant�s allegation that Complainant is a leading global business advisory firm; it offers its renowned software and analytics services to its customers to help organizations manage change, mitigate risk, and resolve disputes; it specializes in technology consulting services and offers data-related business solutions based on its technology expertise; the FTI marks have been prominently used since as early as 2010; throughout over a decade of industry leadership, the FTI marks have become well and favorably known throughout the United States and internationally. Examiner finds that Respondent�s inactive use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name in light of the notoriety of Complainant�s FTI marks.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. fticonsulting.tech

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm
Examiner
Dated: January 29, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page