URS FINAL DETERMINATION AS v. North Sound Names et al.
Claim Number: FA1405001558494




   Complainant: AS of Oslo, Norway
Complainant Representative: Domain and Intellectual Property Consultants, Dipcon AB of Stockholm, Sweden

   Respondent: North Sound Names Domain Administrator of Grand Cayman, II, KY
Respondent Representative: John Berryhill of Ridley Park, PA, USA


   Registries: SEXY Registry
   Registrars: Uniregistrar Corp


   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.
   Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: May 9, 2014
   Commencement: May 13, 2014
   Response Date: May 22, 2014
   Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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.


   Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment]


URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS] 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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant has established that it is the proprietor of the valid trademark FINN, registered in Norway, No. 192448 on August 27, 1998, in classes 35, 36, 38, 39, 41 and 42. Under URS current use of a mark on which a complainant relies can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce – was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse. Complainant has provided a copy of a Trademark Clearinghouse document stating that proof of use is “valid” and that an attached Declaration and a single sample have been uploaded. The attachments themselves have not been provided, so although the Examiner is required to accept that the mark is in current use, the nature of that use is unknown.

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

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Respondent registered the domain name on April 15, 2014. It resolves to a website offering the domain name for sale and containing links entitled “First Names”, Selfies”, “Diet”, “Fitness”, Social Networks”, Dating” and “Modeling”. The word "Finn" is a common name. There is no evidence that Respondent registered the domain name otherwise than to benefit from its significance as a common name.

[URS] 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.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Although the domain name is for sale, there is no evidence that Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant or to a competitor of Complainant. Although Respondent was notified of Complainant's trademark as part of the registration process, the generic nature of the word Finn and the content of the website to which the domain name resolves militate against any finding that Respondent intended to take advantage of the trademark significance of that name.


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

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

The Examiner finds as follows:

  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 


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:



Alan L. Limbury
Dated: May 25, 2014



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page