URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


OANDA Corporation v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2108001960562


DOMAIN NAME

<oanda.live>


PARTIES


   Complainant: OANDA Corporation of NEW YORK, NY, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Donahue Fitzgerald Barbara L. Friedman of Oakland, CA, United States of America

   Respondent: Chao Luo of Yun Na Sheng Kun Ming Shi, Yunnan, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
   Registrars: GoDaddy.com, 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.
   Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: August 20, 2021
   Commencement: August 23, 2021
   Default Date: September 8, 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


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: The Complainant does not allege multiple Complainants.
      Multiple Respondents: The Complainant does not allege multiple Respondents.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant which has been a worldwide leader in the field of currency exchanges services claimed that the domain name used by the Respondent is effectively identical to their registered mark “OANDA”. The Complainant also asserted adding only the gTLD designator “live” to the domain name that is the subject of this Complaint adds nothing to distinguish the aforementioned domain name from their registered trademark. In addition, the Complainant alleged that they have not licensed or allowed Respondent to use their trademark named OANDA in any manner nor given permission to advertise or distribute any of the OANDA services and that they do not have any relationship with Respondent. Once again, the Complainant brought forward that the Respondent who has registered the domain name was well aware of the OANDA trademark and misleads consumers into doing business with the Respondent instead of those consumers intended business partner, which is OANDA.

  

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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark “OANDA” for which the Complainant holds valid registrations before United States Patent and Trademark Offices and World Intellectual Property Organization which are in current use.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant states clearly that they did not authorize the Respondent for use of the “OANDA” trademark. The Respondent did not submit any evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the “OANDA” trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent has not responded to the Complaint. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed 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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


It is obvious that by using the domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to their web site and attempted to create a likelihood of confusion of the Complainant’s trademark. The web site of the Respondent offers a currency trading platform virtually identical to the Complainant’s platform. Lastly, referring to URS site screenshot of the Respondent submitted by the Complainant it is undeniable that the domain name of the Respondent displays the mark and the OANDA logo.


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 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:

  1. oanda.live

 

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: September 13, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page