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.

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

It is important to recall that the standard of proof for the URS is clear and convincing evidence, which is more stringent than the preponderance of the evidence standard applied in the UDRP. As explained below, the Panel finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of providing clear and convincing evidence. The disputed domain name is not being used. Complainant refers to UDRP and URS cases where bad faith registration and use has been found even when a disputed domain name is not being used. But Complainant's trademark is not particularly distinctive: indeed, it can be considered to be a reference to "coding systems". Complainant states: "Moreover, CODESYS is a distinctive term that has no meaning in conjunction with industrial automation software or alike." For the reason given above, the Examiner does not agree with this allegation. According to Complainant: "... there is no conceivable good faith use to which the Registrant could put <codesys.work> that would not infringe the Complainant's trademarks." Complainant does not present any evidence to support that allegation. The Examiner disagrees with the allegation: since "codesys" can refer to "coding systems" it is conceivable that Respondent could use the disputed domain name in a way that would not infringe Complainant's trademark. Complainant does not argue - much less provide evidence to prove - that it's mark is famous or even well known around the world. It merely states that it hosts both <codesys.com> and <codesys.cn>. Complainant states: "Registrant is required to have clicked on the notice 'Acknowledge Claim' when presented with the trademark claims notice to complete registration of <codesys.work>. Thus, Registrant at the time of registration of the disputed domain name knew of the existence of Complainant´s trademarks." But Complainant presents no evidence to support this allegation, nor does it explain in detail what notice the Registrant allegedly clicked on. Thus, for all the reasons given above, the Examiner finds that Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proof under the URS, and the Complaint will be dismissed.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

	Complainant Submitted: May 16, 2022
	Commencement: May 19, 2022
	Default Date: June 3, 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: CODESYS Development GmbH of Kempten, Germany
	Complainant Representative: VKK Patentanwälte Lars Hoppe of Kempten, Germany

	Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
	Registrars: DNSPod, Inc.

	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.
	Richard W. Hill, as Examiner

	Respondent: gaopeng of bei jing shi, II, CN