Sunlane Media, LLC v. Private by Design, LLC
Claim Number: FA2004001892139
Complainant: Sunlane Media, LLC of Henderson, Nevada, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: The Law Offices of Allan B. Gelbard of Encino, California, USA.
Respondent: Whois Privacy / Private by Design, LLC of Sanford, North Carolina, US.
Respondent Representative: unrepresented.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registry: Afilias Limited
Registrar: Porkbun LLC
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: April 15, 2020
Commencement: April 16, 2020
Default Date: May 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 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 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.
The Complainant has not made any submissions but provides evidence of the competitive use of the domain name. The Examiner finds that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant had again made no submissions but provides evidence of the directly competitive use of the domain name. The Examiner finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site.
The Complainant has established the third element.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: May 3, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page