URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
What3words Ltd v.
Claim Number: FA2002001883440
DOMAIN NAME
<what3words.site>
PARTIES
Complainant: What3words Ltd of Londno, United Kingdom | |
Complainant Representative: Aaron B Newell of London, United Kingdom
|
Respondent: cheng ming of ??, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotSite Inc. | |
Registrars: Gandi SAS |
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: February 16, 2020 | |
Commencement: February 18, 2020 | |
Default Date: March 4, 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: Determined: Finding for Complainant 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 WHAT3WORDS UK Reg. No 2656721 registered on July 5, 2013. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that Respondent is not licensed nor authorized to use WHAT3WORDS or similar names, as Complainant has not authorized any third party to do so in the disputed domain name; and Respondent uses the disputed domain name to load a website that appears to pose a security risk, as a trusted security program (McAfee) identifies that the website is �malicious� and is classed as �very risky� and �suspicious� because it may �deploy code designed specifically to hijack your computer�s settings or activity�[including by] selfinstalling applications�and viruses that exploit security vulnerabilities��. Examiner finds that such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name and does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. Examiner also finds that 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.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name's resolving website does not contain information to dispel a connection with Complainant but, rather, creates an impression that the website that loads is proprietary to Complainant by using a copyright notice that says that the site is copyright 2019 what3words Ltd. (the Complainant�s corporate name); causes or threatens to cause damage to Complainant by misleading Complainant�s customers, clients or website visitors, by threatening to use malicious software to cause injury, damage and/or privacy risks to website visitors for personal gain, by impersonating Complainant and giving the impression that the content of the website and/or any e- mails sent from the disputed domain name or received at the disputed domain name will be correspondence with Complainant; and thus the disputed domain name is used by Respondent to disrupt Complainant�s business and to attract or confuse Internet users for commercial gain. Examiner finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. 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:
|
Ho-Hyun Nahm Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page