URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

FTI Consulting, Inc. v. Data Protected
Claim Number: FA2002001882557

DOMAIN NAME

<fticonsulting.space>

PARTIES

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

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

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotSpace 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.
	Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: February 10, 2020
	Commencement: February 11, 2020
	Default Date: February 26, 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: The facts asserted by the Complainant are not contested by the Respondent. No administratively complaint response has been filed. Complainant states that the Complainant holds world-wide rights in the well known names FTI and FTI CONSULTING and FTI trademarks. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name wholly incorporates and is identical to Complainant's FTI CONSULTING trademarks. Furthermore Complainant states to have no business relationship with the Respondent and that the Respondent is not authorized in any way by the Complainant to use or register the disputed domain name. Finally the Complainant contends that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet Users to Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the FTI trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondentï¿½s website.

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 Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as ï¿½.comï¿½, ï¿½.orgï¿½ or in casu ï¿½.spaceï¿½ does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is identical or confusingly similar.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name ï¿½ the Respondents business activities seem to be carried out under the name ï¿½( ) register 365ï¿½. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademarks in a domain name or on a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business with the Respondent.

[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

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the well-known character of the trademark, it is clear and not opposed that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bone fide offerings. The disputed domain name seems merely to be registered to generate traffic to the website register365.com from which Respondent conducts his business. All these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such websites.

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:

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:

fticonsulting.space

Lars Karnøe
Examiner
Dated: February 28, 2020

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page