Global Name Services LLP v. Deborah Jhonson et al.
Claim Number: FA2003001888947
Complainant: Global Name Services LLP of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: Deborah Jhonson of coatesville, Pennsylvania, US.
Respondent Representative: no representation.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc.
Registrars: Hostinger, UAB;
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: March 19, 2020
Commencement: March 24, 2020
Default Date: April 8, 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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Even though 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.
1.2.6.1. that the registered domain name is 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.
The evidence shows that Complainant holds a valid national registration for DLA PIPER which is in use. Further, the Examiner finds that the domain name is legally identical to the trademark and so finds the first element to be established.
1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
There is no suggestion that Respondent might be known by the domain name. There is no evidence Respondent has trademark rights of its own. The evidence is that the domain name has not been used so far and so there is no use of the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name and that Complainant has established the second element.
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Complainant’s submissions are that it is a global law firm located in over 40 countries around the world which has used the trademark, DLA PIPER, since 2006 in connection with legal, consulting, and advisory services. It states that the trademark has been extensively put before the public via a variety of media, including audio, video, printed publications, worldwide campaigns, event sponsorships, speaking engagements, conferences and cultural events. Complainant alleges that Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor which is evidence of bad faith registration. Further, “Complainant believes that Respondent likely registered the Domain Name to impersonate DLA Piper and as a vehicle to potentially commit fraud against unsuspecting customers, DLA Piper employees, and others through a variety of vehicles facilitated by the Domain Name, including email addresses at the Domain Name and future web sites at the Domain Name.”
The standard of review is clear and convincing evidence. There is no evidence that Respondent is a competitor of Complainant. On the other hand, there is no explanation as to why Respondent would have chosen to register the distinctive trademark, DLA Piper, in good faith. The Panel finds bad faith registration. Further, the Panel accepts the asserted notoriety of the trademark. Albeit that there is no evidence of actual use of the domain name the Panel finds bad faith use in line with the authority of the UDRP case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003.
Complainant has established the third element.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: April 11, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page