The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. Identity Protect Limited et al.
Claim Number: FA1608001687117




   Complainant: The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. of Boston, MA, United States of America
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) James K Stewart of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: Benchmark Consulting Global Ltd, liam barbary of Sherwood Park, Nottingham, II, United Kingdom


   Registries: Over Corner, LLC
   Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited


   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.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: August 5, 2016
   Commencement: August 8, 2016
   Default Date: August 23, 2016
   Default Decision Date: August 25, 2016
   Response Date: August 25, 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.


   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 demonstrated that it has rights in the "BCG" trademark. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety merely adding the TLD ".ltd", which is irrelevant for the assessment of identity/similarity. Respondent admits that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark.

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

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Respondent has demonstrated that it has rights and legitimate interests in the domain name by providing a Certificate of Incorporation showing that it is currently doing business as Benchmark Consulting Global Ltd. Abbreviating corporate names consisting of several words using their initial letters is a standard business practice. Moreover, Ltd is a form of incorporation of Respondent's company.

[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 

Based on the provided evidence, it is found that Registrant is making a legitimate and fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.


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:

  1. bcg.ltd


Natalia Stetsenko
Dated: August 29, 2016



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page