Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant is the owner of various trademark registrations for the word CRANE, including: - European Union trademark CRANE (word) No. 010423259, filed on November 17, 2011 and registered on June 12, 2012, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, and 19; - International trademark CRANE (word) No. 1118090, registered since November 11, 2011, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, and 19; - UK trademark CRANE (word) No. UK010423259, filed on November 17, 2011 and registered on June 12, 2012, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, and 19. The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the CRANE trademark is currently in commercial use. The Examiner finds that the Complainant has established standing to bring this URS proceeding. The second-level portion of the disputed domain name, "crane," is identical to the Complainant's registered word marks for CRANE. The top-level domain is typically disregarded in assessing identity or confusing similarity under URS standards. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to a mark in which the Complainant has demonstrated valid rights. The first element is satisfied.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

The disputed domain name consists of the generic or descriptive word "crane," which, according to the Cambridge Dictionary, refers to "a tall metal structure with a long horizontal part, used for lifting and moving heavy objects." The Complainant submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name resolved to a parking page containing PPC links related to the generic meaning of the word "crane" (e.g., "Crane Lifting Machinery," "Crane Lifting Equipment," "Lifting Equipment"), and that the disputed domain name was listed for sale. There is no evidence before the Examiner that the domain name has been used to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Complainant's trademark. Instead, the Complainant's own evidence confirms that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with the dictionary meaning of the word "crane." In such cases, use of a generic term in a descriptive sense, without targeting the complainant or its industry, may constitute fair use and confer legitimate interest. Additionally, the Examiner notes that a brief consultation of publicly available trademark databases reveals that numerous third-party trademark registrations exist for the word "CRANE," across various jurisdictions and industries. This further supports that the word is not uniquely associated with the Complainant and weakens the inference that any use of "crane" is inherently connected to the Complainant's mark. The second element is not satisfied.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

The Complainant relies on URS Procedure 1.2.6.3(a), which concerns domain names registered primarily for the purpose of selling them to the trademark owner or a competitor "for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." However, the evidence shows that the disputed domain name is being offered for sale at USD 100, which does not exceed typical domain registration and administrative costs in a manner suggesting bad-faith intent to profit. There is no evidence that the Respondent targeted the Complainant, used the disputed domain name to mislead Internet users, or attempted to interfere with the Complainant's business. Rather, the disputed domain name consists of a generic term, and the associated PPC links reflect that generic meaning. The URS Procedure under paragraphs 5.9.1 and 5.9.2 states that trading in domain names for profit and use of PPC parking pages do not, by themselves, constitute bad faith. These activities may be considered abusive only in context, taking into account: - the nature of the domain name; - the nature of the advertising links; and - the overall conduct of the Registrant. In this case, the disputed domain name is generic, the advertising links correspond to its dictionary meaning, and the disputed domain name has been offered for sale at a non-excessive price. The Complainant has not shown that the Respondent acted with knowledge of, or intent to profit from, the Complainant's trademark. The Examiner also notes that the Respondent's acknowledgment of a Trademark Claims Notice during registration does not by itself amount to evidence of bad faith. The third element is not satisfied.

Respondent has alleged that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. 

Pursuant to URS Procedure 11.2, a Complaint may be deemed abusive if: - It was presented solely for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of doing business (11.2.1); and - The claims or assertions were not warranted by existing law or the URS standards, or the factual contentions lacked any evidentiary support (11.2.2). The URS is designed for clear-cut cases of trademark abuse involving domain names that were registered and used in bad faith, with no legitimate rights or interests by the respondent. In this case, the Complainant failed to establish, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, or that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name consists of a generic term, and the evidence submitted by the Complainant shows it was used in a manner consistent with its dictionary meaning. The PPC links on the parking page are directly related to that generic meaning, and there is no indication that the Respondent targeted the Complainant or its trademark. Furthermore, offering the disputed domain name for sale to the general public—not to the Complainant or its competitors—at a modest price of USD 100 does not support a finding of bad faith under URS standards. The Complainant, assisted by a professional representative, should have known that it could not succeed under the strict and limited scope of the URS, particularly given the generic nature of the term "crane" and the existence of numerous third-party trademark registrations for that term across different industries. The Examiner finds that the Complainant filed this URS Complaint with knowledge that it was unfounded. Accordingly, the Complaint is deemed an abuse of the URS proceeding.

After reviewing the parties' 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 name(s) be returned to the control of Respondent:

1. crane.legal

The Examiner further finds the Complaint was brought in an abuse of the administrative proceeding or with material falsehoods as explained above. Complainant is reminded of URS Procedure 11 when making future filings.