Virgin Enterprises Limited v. whoisprotection.biz et al.
Claim Number: FA1603001666898




   Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom
Complainant Representative: Stobbs Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom

   Respondent: whoisprotection.biz Domain Admin Admin of Istanbul, NA, II, TR


   Registries: Top Level Domain Holdings Limited
   Registrars: Isimtescil


   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.
   Piotr Nowaczyk, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: March 22, 2016
   Commencement: March 23, 2016
   Default Date: April 7, 2016
   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 name be suspended for the life of the registration.


   Clear and convincing evidence.


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Respondents: No multiple complainants or respondents and no extraneous domain names require dismissal.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant, Virgin Enterprises Limited, is a well-known company that originated in 1970 and has a variety of businesses. The Virgin Group now comprises over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries. The trademark VIRGIN ATLANTIC is well-known throughout the world and enjoys a reputation as a leading airline company. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC marks around the world. For example, British trademark registration no. 1287264 – VIRGIN ATLANTIC, with the registration date June 28, 1991. This is further supported by the fact that the VIRGIN ATLANTIC name has been submitted and verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse.


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] 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 

The disputed domain name <virgin-atlantic.work> is identical to the Complainant's VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark since it incorporates the word mark in its entirety. In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus the “.work” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). The Examiner finds that the Complainant met the standard set out in of URS Procedure – the Complainant proved that it holds a valid trademark (Britsh trademark registration No. 1287264). Further, the Complainant confirmed that the registered trademark is in current use by presenting verification documents from the Trademark Clearinghouse.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

According to the Complainant’s, the Respondent has no legitimate interests in the disputed domain name which resolves to the website with no content. In particular, the Complainant contends that it made several attempts to contact the domain owner in an attempt to reach an amicable solution but no response has been received. In the absence of any counter arguments and evidences in support of the Respondent’s rights and legitimate interest, the Examiner finds that the second element under URS Procedure has been satisfied.

[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 Complainant 

The disputed domain name was registered long after the VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark which is commonly known all over the word. Therefore, the Respondent had known or should have known about the Complainant’s rights. In the light of this, registering a domain name corresponding to a famous and reputable trademark, and subsequent passive holding of such a domain, thus preventing the trademark holder from registering such a domain, constitute bad faith. The Respondent has not submitted any evidences confirming circumstances listed in URS Procedure 5.7. In the absence of any defense which might have affected the decision on this issue, it is found that the third element of the policy under URS Procedure has been satisfied.


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:

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


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:

  1. virgin-atlantic.work


Piotr Nowaczyk
Dated: April 10, 2016



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page