URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Polychain Capital v. Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf
Claim Number: FA2106001951782


DOMAIN NAME

<poly-chain.capital>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Polychain Capital Drew Rothstein of San Francisco, CA, United States of America
  

   Respondent: Withheld for Privacy Purposes / Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf of Reykjavik Capital Region, Capital Region, IS
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

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.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: June 19, 2021
   Commencement: June 21, 2021
   Default Date: July 7, 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: For the Panel to issue a determination in this case, the Complainant must present adequate evidence to substantiate its trademark rights in the domain name. Pursuant to URS Rules, Rule 8 and 10, and URS Procedure 8.3 to 8.6 and 9.1, the Panel may base its decision only on the case record limited to the complaint and response. In case of Respondent’s default, Complainant still must make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the three elements of the Policy to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended (URS Procedure 1.2.6). Although the Panel does not exclude the probability that the disputed domain might be scam and agrees that URS could be an appropriate tool for combatting fraudulent websites, having reviewed the case record, the Panel considers that the threshold of "clear and convincing evidence" required to order a suspension under the URS has not been met by Complainant. Particularly, Complainant has failed to establish that it owns a trademark registration that is identical or confusingly similar to the domain name based on clear and convincing evidence.

  

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.


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


[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.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. poly-chain.capital

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: July 9, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page