Grey Global Group LLC v. i-content Ltd. et al.
Claim Number: FA1606001681062
Complainant: Grey Global Group LLC of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: i-content Ltd. of Berlin, Berlin, International, DE.
i-content Ltd. Zweigniederlassung Deuitschland of Berlin, International, Germany.
Complainant Representative: BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT of Berlin, International, Germany.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Spring Madison, LLC
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 24, 2016
Commencement: June 27, 2016
Response Date: July 8, 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.
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 Procedure 8.2 provides that “The burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidence”.
Complainant has failed to establish the first element necessary to succeed on a UDRP claim: that it owns trademark rights and that the Domain Name is identical to that trademark.
The American trademark GREY No 2469398 on which the complaint is based is in the name of the American company Grey Global Group Inc (Delaware Corporation), whereas the complaint is filed in the name of the American company Grey Global Group LLC.
There is no explanation on this difference.
Therefore the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not present adequate evidence to substantiate its trademark rights in the domain name and rejects the Complaint
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 names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
The Examiner independently finds that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that to the Examiner’s best knowledge it did NOT contain material falsehoods.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: July 08, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page