URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Peloton Interactive, Inc. v. Private by Design, LLC
Claim Number: FA2205001996436
DOMAIN NAME
<peloton.club>
PARTIES
Complainant: Peloton Interactive, Inc. of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C.
Todd Martin of New York, NY, United States of America
|
Respondent: Whois Privacy / Private by Design, LLC of Sanford, NC, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC | |
Registrars: Porkbun |
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. | |
Richard W. Hill, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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"). |
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
Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark PELOTON dating back to 2014 and uses it to market fitness equipment. The mark is well known. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety and merely adds the gTLD ".club". Thus the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under the URS. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent offers the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs and makes no other use of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is not a common, descriptive, or generic English word. Respondent (who did not reply to the Complaint) has not provided any explanation for its use of Complainant's well known mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Thus the Examiner finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent makes no use of the disputed domain name other than to offer it for sale for a price in excess of out of pocket costs. The disputed domain name is not a common, descriptive, or generic English word. Respondent (who did not reply to the Complaint) has not provided any explanation for its use of Complainant's well known mark. Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith in the sense of the URS. 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:
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:
|
Richard W. Hill Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page