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:
  (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 disputed domain name <cvssurvey.club> fully incorporates the word mark CVS for which the Complainant holds valid registration and that is in current use, the status and confirmation of use in has been proved by Complainant. The disputed domain name includes Complainantï¿½s CVS mark with the generic word ï¿½surveyï¿½. It is well accepted that adding a generic term to a mark does not distinguish the domain name from the mark for the purposes of the Policy. Furthermore, the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus new gTLD .club does not preclude confusion of the conflicting domain with Complainantï¿½s mark. Internet users may infer the gTLD .club as the one which demonstrates that it refers to the site associated with Complainant. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the contested domain name is confusingly similar with Complainantï¿½s word mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

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

It is well established that for the purposes of the Policy WHOIS information showing a registrant name that is materially different from the domain name at issue is competent evidence that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. According to the WHOIS records, the domain name <cvssurvey.club> was registered by Ratnesh Singh (IN) with reference to Star Digital as the Registrant Organization. Thus, the Examiner determines that Respondent is not commonly known by the CVS name. Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainantï¿½s mark in a domain name or otherwise. When accessing the website under the disputed domain name <cvssurvey.club>, internet users are referred to website where users are requested to take a survey with monthly prizes in exchange for their filling out surveys. The website interface causes the impression the <cvssurvey.club> website is or is affiliated with Complainant and that the alleged prizes are provided by Complainant. Complainant alleges that the survey is scam. Complainant further indicates that the <cvssurvey.club> website content also directs users to apply for employment with CVS via a link to jobs.cvshealth.com, which link is believed to be used specifically to phish for the userï¿½s personal information. Examiner finds that the site screenshot accompanying the Complaint indicates that the interface of the is obviously intended to, and does, convey the impression that it is a Complainant site, or one affiliated, sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. The use of a disputed domain name cannot support the finding that Respondent has any legitimate right or interest as it is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the domain name purports to give prizes to Internet users who complete online surveys. The case papers do not contain any information which might evidence on the legitimate fair use of the domain name by the Respondent. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.

[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.

The disputed domain names, having been found confusingly similar to Complainantï¿½s CVS mark, create initial confusion as to their possible sponsorship by Complainant and relation to Complainantï¿½s CVS mark. Internet users reaching Respondentï¿½s domain name will believe that the disputed domain name is affiliated with Complainant and will therefore complete the survey and may apply for employment with CVS via a link to jobs.cvshealth.com, as that may be under impression that the survey is approved by Complainant. As such, the Examiner finds that Respondentï¿½s registration and use of the <cvssurvey.club> domain name intends to attract Internet users to the domain names for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainantï¿½s mark as to the affiliation of Respondentï¿½s domain name, which shows bad faith.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

	Complainant Submitted: May 27, 2020
	Commencement: May 28, 2020
	Default Date: June 12, 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: CVS Pharmacy, Inc. of Woonsocket, RI, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Sheridan Ross P.C. Sarah J Schneider of Denver, CO, USA

	Respondent: Ratnesh Singh / Star Digital of Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, II, IN

	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.
	Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner

	Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
	Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc.