URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
OANDA Corporation v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2104001941041
DOMAIN NAME
<oanda22.vip>
PARTIES
Complainant: OANDA Corporation of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Donahue Fitzgerald
Barbara L Friedman of Oakland, United States of America
|
Respondent: Hua Chen of Fu Zhou, Anhui, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited | |
Registrars: Go Montenegro Domains, LLC |
EXAMINER
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. | |
Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: April 9, 2021 | |
Commencement: April 12, 2021 | |
Default Date: April 27, 2021 | |
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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark OANDA. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that Respondent uses the domain name to direct consumers to a website where Respondent uses the OANDA mark and OANDA’s famous logo to impersonate OANDA and defraud visitors. Misled consumers looking for OANDA and tricked into visiting this website are required to submit personal information to create purportedly commercial accounts. OANDA has not authorized Respondent to: (a) use the OANDA mark in any manner; (b) advertise or distribute any of the OANDA services; or (c) assert that Respondent is, or has any relationship with, OANDA. Instead, Respondent has attempted to usurp OANDA's goodwill in its OANDA mark and fraudulently impersonate OANDA via a phishing website in a blatant attempt to confuse and deceive internet users into providing personal and financial information to Respondent. Therefore, Examiner concludes in the absence of Response that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that the OANDA mark is world-renowned and OANDA’s rights therein were established long prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name. The mark has no meaning except as OANDA's name and as a source indicator of OANDA’s services. At the time Respondent registered the domain name, it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of the OANDA trademark given its efforts to illegally trade off it through this registration, its prominent display of the OANDA mark, and OANDA’s logo. The clear goal of the site is to confuse potential OANDA customers by fraudulently impersonating OANDA via a phishing website created to steal personal and financial information from unsuspecting consumers. As further evidence of bad faith, Complainant notes this website is identical to the oanda.vip and oandavip.vip websites for which Complainant filed successful URS complaints earlier this year. Examiner agrees with Complainant that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties 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(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Ho-Hyun Nahm Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page