recteq, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot
Claim Number: FA2108001958355
Complainant: recteq, LLC of Evans, Georgia, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Rumsey and Ramsey, Attorneys At Law of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
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.
Fernando Triana, Esq, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: August 6, 2021
Commencement: August 10, 2021
Default Date: August 25, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
1. Complainant’s trademark consists of a DESIGN. Hence, it is impossible for a domain name to reproduce it.
2. Where Complainant fails to establish an element necessary for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use it is unnecessary to further analyze the remaining elements.
As per the Paragraph 9 (c) of the URS Rules, the Examiner will determine in which language to issue its Determination. Taking into account that Complainant submitted the Complaint in English and that no Response was filed, the Examiner will decide in English.
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.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Concerning the first element, Paragraph 1.2.6.1., of the URS Procedure introduces that to obtain an order to suspend a domain name; the disputed domain name should be identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which 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.
Furthermore, the use of said trademark could be shown by:
a. Demonstrating evidence of use – which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce – was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse.
b. Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint”.
a) Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use
Complainant proved its rights on the trademark with registration No. 4.861.989, which is a DESIGN, registered in the United States of America since 2015 in international classes 4, 11 and 27:
This information appears to be incontestable and conclusive evidence of Complainant’s ownership of the cited trademark and the exclusive right to use it in connection with the corresponding goods. The registration of a trademark is prima facie evidence of validity, which creates a rebuttable presumption that the trademark is inherently distinctive[1].
Furthermore, Complainant filed evidence of current use in commerce, providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint.
Therefore, the Examiner concludes that Complainant has demonstrated to be the owner of a valid trademark registration which is in current use for purposes of Paragraph 1.2.6.1.(i), of the URS Procedure.
b) Identity or confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademark
The Examiner considers that there is no reproduction of Complainant’s trademark, since the disputed domain name uses the word “rectequsa”, while the trademark is the following graphic:
Respondent’s use of Complainant’s trademark in the resolving website might be considered as a trademark infringement. Nonetheless, the URS Procedure does not rule trademark infringements or even examines the content of the resolving websites.
In fact, Paragraphs 1.2.6.1., and 8.1.2, of the URS Procedure clearly state: “The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark” (Highlighted and Underlined out of the original text).
In this case, Complainant did not prove its rights over a word trademark.
Consequently, Complainant did not prove the requirement of Paragraph 1.2.6.1., of the URS Procedure.
Where Complainant fails to establish an element necessary for a finding of abusive domain name registration and use it is unnecessary to further analyze the remaining elements. Hence, as the trademark proven in this case is not identical or confusingly similar to the disputed domain name, it is not necessary to study neither the registration and use in bad faith nor the rights or legitimate interests.
Consequently, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, Complainant has not proven the requirements set forth in the URS Procedure.
The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name <rectequsa.shop> be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
Fernando Triana, Examiner
Dated: August 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page