Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of the word mark "CODESYS" protected by the international registration, as well as documents to show that the CODESYS trademark is in current use (verified by TMCH). The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s CODESYS trademark. The applicable Top Level Domain (“TLD”) in a domain name (e.g., “.com”, “.club”, “.nyc”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. The registered domain name <codesys.site> is identical to the Complainant’s CODESYS trademark. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.1.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Respondent is not a licensee of, or otherwise affiliated with, the Complainant, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its CODESYS trademark. There is nothing to suggest that the Respondent is commonly known by the registered domain name or that it has trademark rights of its own. The CODESYS trademark does not represent the dictionary term, but it is the invented name. The registered domain name resolves to the parking page. The passive holding of the registered domain name is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Because the Respondent has defaulted, the Respondent has failed to meet its burden of production to come forward with evidence of rights or a legitimate interest. Thus, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure 1.2.6.2 has been satisfied.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, <telstra.org>). The Examiner established that at least factors (ii) and (iv) are applicable to this case. Respectively, registering a domain name identical to a registered trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith. The Registrant has not submitted any evidence confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied. The non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. (see Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, <telstra.org>). The Examiner established that at least factors (ii) and (iv) are applicable to this case. Respectively, registering the domain name identical to the registered trademark, and subsequent passive holding of this domain is viewed by the Examiner as bad faith. The Registrant has not submitted any evidence confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure 1.2.6.3 has been satisfied.

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. codesys.site