FLUOR CORPORATION v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2006001899636
Complainant: FLUOR CORPORATION of Irving, Texas, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: CSC Digital Brand Services of Wilmington, Delaware, United States of America.
Respondent: WhoisGuard, Inc. / WhoisGuard Protected of Panama, Panama.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: BestTLD Pty Ltd
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 9, 2020
Commencement: June 10, 2020
Default Date: June 25, 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").
The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 0591442 FLUOR, which was registered on June 15, 1954, covering mainly construction services in class 40, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s FLUOR Mark and is identical to such mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant also states that it has not authorized or permitted Respondent to use the FLUOR Mark in any manner and that the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing “Sponsored Listings,” i.e. advertising links to third parties’ websites, some of which are even competing.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Respondent knew, or should have known, of the existence of the Complainant's trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name and that registration of domain names containing well-known trademarks constitutes bad faith per se. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent at the time of initial filing of the Complaint had employed a privacy service to hide its identity, which serves as further evidence of bad faith registration and use. Finally, the Complainant states that by registering the disputed domain name that is identical to Complainant’s FLUOR Mark, only to then redirect users to a website which features PPC links, the Respondent has demonstrated a nefarious intent to capitalize on the fame and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademarks in order to increase traffic to the disputed domain name’s website for Respondent’s own pecuniary gain.
Due to the facts that the highly distinctive FLUOR Mark is well-established internationally for decades and that the Respondent’s website available at the disputed domain name features competing advertising links, the Examiner accepts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s FLUOR Mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the FLUOR Mark into the disputed domain name and by using the website at such domain name as a parking website providing links to third parties, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
<fluor.best>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: June 30, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page