Central Florida Educational Foundation, Inc. v. Matthew Klein et al.
Claim Number: FA2003001887817

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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

Complainant prevailed upon [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. Claimant presented clear and convincing evidence of a trademark registered on January 7, 2020 and clear and convincing evidence of current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Respondent

Claimant merely claims that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent offers clear and convincing evidence that there were no live trademarks for the term "living worship" at the time of his registration of the domain name. Respondent offers clear and convincing evidence that Claimant's trademark registration shows date of first use of mark of June 17, 2019, which was subsequent to Respondent's registration of domain name on August 07, 2018. Respondent offered domain name legal precedent as clear and convincing evidence that his use of the mark to engage in domain name speculation and profiteering, is a bona fide use, in absence of targeting of Complainant's trademark.

[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 Respondent

Respondent successfully defended sub-factor a. wherein Complainant charged that Registrant registered the domain name in bad faith with the intention to transfer ownership to the Complainant for an unreasonable price. Respondent offered clear and convincing evidence that registration for his domain name predates Complainant's first claimed use of "living worship" by 10 months. Respondent also successfully defended sub-factor b. wherein Complainant charged that Respondent is blocking the trademark holder from obtaining the domain name, because Complainant's website is merely a sale advertisement for the domain name. Respondent's clear and convincing evidence was that disputed domain name is generic and has legitimate economic value to investors. As such, uses of name for click bait and for profitable resale, are a legitimate bona fide use, absent a specific intent to target and to sell domain name to Claimant.

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.

Respondent has alleged 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.

While the Examiner finds that the Complaint contains unsubstantiated opinions regarding Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <livingworship.org>, Examiner does not find clear and convincing evidence that the Complaint rises to the level of an abuse of this administrative proceeding or that the Complaint contains material falsehoods.

DETERMINATION

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

livingworship.org

	Complainant Submitted: March 11, 2020
	Commencement: March 11, 2020
	Default Date: March 27, 2020
	Response Date: April 1, 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").

	Complainant: Central Florida Educational Foundation, Inc. James S Hoge of Altamonte Springs, FL, United States of America

	Respondent: Matthew A Klein of New York, NY, United States of America

	Registries: Public Interest Registry
	Registrars: DropCatch.com 845 LLC

	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.
	Carol Stoner, as Examiner

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: Sole Complainant.
		Multiple Respondents: Sole Respondent.