The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2005001897777
Complainant: The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. / WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
Geenee / Luke Peterson of West Hollywood, California, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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 27, 2020
Commencement: May 28, 2020
Default Date: June 17, 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 has shown that it is the owner of the national United States word trademark “BCG” with registration number 983,019, registered on April 30th, 1972. The Complainant has also shown that it has made effective use of this trademark.
The Complainant asserts that it is a world-renowned business management consulting firm, with 82 offices in 46 countries and 10.500 employees. The Complainant further asserts that it owns a number of trade and service marks registrations around the world for the mark ‘BCG’ as well as the trade dress and trade names related to its business management consulting business. As proof of use, the Complainant has submitted a screenshot of its official website <bcg.com>.
The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is therefore presumed to not refute this.
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 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 <bcg.marketing> is identical to the Complainant’s national United States trademark “BCG” with registration number 983,019, with the addition of the suffix ‘.marketing’.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
The Claimant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the domain name, since he has no business relationship with the Complainant and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use its trademark(s) or to apply for the disputed domain name. The Complainant further asserts that, because it owns several national and international ‘BCG’ trademarks, the Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights in the Domain Name.
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. Therefore, 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 “BCG” 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 it is a world-renowned business management consulting firm. The Complainant further asserts that, through the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of BCG, which is evidence of bad faith registration. The Complainant has submitted proof that, at the time of filing its compliant, the disputed domain name was inactive.
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 parties’ submissions, the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:
<bcg.marketing>
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: June 17th, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page