Virgin Enterprise Limited v. Wang Hong Wei

Claim Number: FA1607001683953






Complainant: Virgin Enterprise Limited of London, United Kingdom.

Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.


Respondent: Wang Hong Wei of Beijing, China.



Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited

Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)



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.


Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.



Complainant submitted: July 15, 2016

Commencement: July 18, 2016

Default Date: August 2, 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.



No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.


Findings of Fact:

Even though the Respondent has defaulted, 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 states that it owns rights “in VIRGIN through trade mark registrations and through having had a validated entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse.”, and provided the SMD file related to the Trade Mark Clearinghouse entry for the trademark “VIRGIN MEDIA”. Furthermore, the Complainant has provided a list of more than 100 trademarks allegedly registered in the name of the Complainant. However, the Complainant failed to provide a single copy of a trademark certificate or a printout of an official trademark database. Therefore, the Examiner has no proof with regard to the Complainant’s allegations. In addition, the Examiner was not able to trace a single trademark application or registration in the name of the Complainant “Virgin Enterprise Limited”.


The Examiner finds that the evidence is not clear and convincing that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional word mark.


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


It is unnecessary to consider this element.


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


It is unnecessary to consider this element.



No abuse or material falsehood.



After reviewing the Complainant’s 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.






Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner

Dated:  August 5, 2016




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page