Royalty Bugaboo GmbH v. REDACTED FOR PRIVACY

Claim Number: FA2110001969945






Complainant: †Royalty Bugaboo GmbH of Zug, Switzerland.

Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. of New York, New York, United States of America.


Respondent: †Withheld for Privacy Purposes, of Reykjavik, Capital Region, International, IS.

Respondent Representative: †None appearing



Registrar: †Nominet.uk



The undersigned certifies that he acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.


Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Examiner.



Complainant submitted: October 20, 2021

Commencement: October 21, 2021†††

Default Date: November 5, 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.



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 suspending a domain name:


         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 currently in effect and that was in effect at the time the URS Complaint was filed; and

         Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and

         the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.


The Examiner finds as follows:


There is no genuine issue as to any material fact.


Complainant alleges that it owns trademark registrations for the BUGABOO mark around the world, including U. S. registrations.† It submitted a lengthy list enumerating and describing its alleged registrations, but this list was generated by Complainant.† Complainant did not submit documentary evidence issued by a governmental trademark authority of any trademark registration.† This omission is fatal to its case.† It has failed to prove the first required element stated above, and its Complaint must therefore be dismissed.


The Examiner further finds, however, that this omission is likely the result of oversight or excusable neglect, and that there is no hint of abusive use of the URS Procedure.†



After reviewing the Complainantís submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has failed to demonstrate an essential element of its case.† The Examiner hereby Orders that Complaint be, and it hereby is DISMISSED, without prejudice to the filing of another Complaint involving this domain name, to be supported by sufficient competent evidence.† The status of the following domain name is not affected in any way by this DETERMINATION.



Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Examiner

Dated:† November 6, 2021




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page