T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. v. Privacy Protection
Claim Number: FA2201001981695
Complainant: T. Rowe Price Group, Inc. of Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: Privacy Protection of Chicago, Illinois, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: Sav.com, 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.
Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 24, 2022
Commencement: January 26, 2022
Default Date: February 10, 2022
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.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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 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 in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is registered owner of the United States service mark registration no. 1,493,517 “T. ROWE PRICE”, which was registered on June 21, 1988 for services in class 36 (hereinafter referred to as the “T. ROWE PRICE Mark”), as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain names all incorporate the T. ROWE PRICE Mark with minor typos. The T. ROWE PRICE Mark is easily recognizable within the disputed domain names. Given that the specific top-level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the T. ROWE PRICE Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain names.
The Complainant has not filed any argument with regard to the Respondent’s legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain names. The Complainant therefore failed to make a prima facie case in this regard, as required by URS Procedure 1.2.6.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names solely for the purposes of typosquatting and that such conduct constitutes bad faith conduct in itself. It further states that the Respondent has undoubtedly used the disputed domain names to attempt to attract users to its site in bad faith.
The Complainant, however, has not provided sufficient evidence that the disputed domain names are being used in bad faith. At present, the disputed domain names are inactive. The Complainant stated that the Respondent has “undoubtedly used” the disputed domain names to attempt to attract users to its site in bad faith. The Complainant failed to provide any evidence in support to its allegations. Previous URS decisions have held that the passive holding of a domain name could support, by clear and convincing evidence, that a domain name is being used in bad faith. However, passive holding does not per se lead in a finding of bad faith use. See Central Florida Educational Foundation, Inc. v. Domain Administrator / NameFind LLC et al., FA 1887839 (Forum, March 25, 2020); Netflix, Inc. v. Masterclass Media et al., FA 1639527 (Forum Oct. 2, 2015); Allianz SE v. Registrant of xn--49s296f.xn--3ds443g / Rich Premium Limited / Domain Administrator, FA 1579170 (Forum Oct. 1, 2014). On the contrary, passive holding is equal to active use in bad faith only under specific circumstances. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, D2000-0003 (WIPO Feb. 18, 2000).
The Complainant has not provided evidence that the Respondent used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Furthermore, the Complainant has not established that the Respondent’s nonuse of the disputed domain names equals bad faith use under the passive holding doctrine, first set out in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows and confirmed ever since. Rather, the Complainant merely asserted that the disputed domain names were used to attempt to attract users to its site in bad faith. In sum, after carefully considering the evidence, the Examiner finds that the evidence is not clear and convincing that the domain names are being used in bad faith. Given that the URS is not intended for use in any proceedings with open questions of fact, but only clear cases of trademark abuse, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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 names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<roweprice.xyz>
<trowep.xyz>
<trowepric.xyz>
<troweprices.xyz>
<troweprise.xyz>
<trowerice.xyz>
<trowprice.xyz>
<trroweprice.xyz>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: February 15, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page