Netflix, Inc. v. ENAME.GURU INC. et al.

Claim Number: FA1509001639496



<netflix.reviews>; <netflix.wiki>



Complainant: Netflix, Inc. of Los Gatos, California, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: Holland & Hart LLP of Boulder, Colorado, United States of America.


Respondent: ENAME.GURU INC. of OCALA, Florida, US.

Respondent Representative:  self-represented.



Registries: REVIEWS Registry; Top Level Design, LLC

Registrars: NETIM SARL; PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com



The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.


Debrett Gordon Lyons as Examiner.



Complainant submitted: September 25, 2015

Commencement: September 28, 2015     

Response Date: October 15, 2015

Response submitted: October 15, 2015



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 requests that the domain names be suspended for the lives of the registrations.



Clear and convincing evidence.




URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires the 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 ] The registered domain name is 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.


The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of United States Federal Trademark Reg. No. 3,299,362, registered from September 25, 2007 for the trademark NETFLIX as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.


The Examiner finds that the domain names are identical to the Complainant’s trademark. The domain names fully incorporate the Complainant’s trademark and merely add the extensions “.wiki” or “.reviews”.  It is well established that the addition of a domain name extension can be ignored when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name.


The Response did not address any of these issues.


The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that URS Procedure is satisfied.


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


The domain names were not in use at the time the complaint was filed.


The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the domain names, that Respondent has never been authorized by the Complainant to register the domain names, that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain names.


Respondent’s assertions in reply were unsubstantiated and unconvincing and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.


The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain names.  Accordingly, URS Procedure is satisfied.


[ ] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that Respondent targeted Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the domain names. 

There has been no proof of actual use of the domain names and given the notoriety of the trademark the Examiner is satisfied that this is a case of “passive holding in bad faith” and therefore use in bad faith.  The assertions made in the Response are unsubstantiated and unconvincing.  Further, they suggest that the domain names may have been for sale.


The Examiner finds clear and convincing evidence that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith.  Accordingly, URS Procedure is satisfied.



No abuse or material falsehood.



After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.






Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner

Dated:  October 17, 2015




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page