Erni Group holding AG v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA2005001897254
Complainant: Erni Group holding AG of Luzern, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative: CORE Association of Geneva, Switzerland.
Respondent: Registration Private of Scottsdale, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, 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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 21, 2020
Commencement: May 26, 2020
Default Date: June 10, 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.
The Complainant is a Swiss software engineering firm, operating from different countries around the world. The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of at least one Swiss word trademark named “ERNI”, with registration number P-492716 registered on December 12th 2001. The Complainant claims to have registered this mark with Trademark Clearinghouse on July 24th 2015. The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is therefore presumed to not refute this.
As proof of use, the Complainant has submitted a Signed Mark Data (SMD) file in connection to the mark ERNI, which, among other things, allows the Complainant to initiate an URS procedure regarding domain names consisting of said mark. The identification number of the SMD file is 000000442331533305720327-1, and the SMD file is valid until July 24th 2020.
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 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.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Respondent did not file a response.
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The disputed domain name <erni.work> is identical to the Complainant’s Swiss word trademark “ERNI” with registration number P-492716 with the addition of the suffix ‘.work’.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as a domain name, or to register the disputed domain name. The Complainant has shown that, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was inactive and was being offered for sale.
The Examiner notes that the Respondent did not file a response and therefore did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “ERNI” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Examiner decides that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because the Respondent is consciously hiding his personal information from third parties with legitimate interests in the domain name, and because, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name was inactive and was being offered for sale.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Indeed, it is likely that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration, in accordance with the paragraph 1.2.6.3.d of the URS Procedure. The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. In general terms, there are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<erni.work>
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: June 12, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page