St. Olaf College v. patel trading llc
Claim Number: FA1707001740789
Complainant: St. Olaf College of Northfield, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: St. Olaf College of Northfield, United States of America.
Respondent: patel trading llc of St. Johns, Arkansas, US.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com
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 Ms., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 20, 2017
Commencement: July 21, 2017
Default Date: August 8, 2017
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.
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 paragraph 184.108.40.206: The domain name at issue <stolaf-edu.online> is composed with the distinctive part of the Complainant’s ST. OLAF COLLEGE trademark, together with the addition of the prefix “edu” for “education”, under the extension “.online”, meaning that the education services provided by the Complainant are offered online.
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s ST. OLAF COLLEGE trademark, for which the Complainant holds valid rights in the United States.
URS paragraph 220.127.116.11: Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name.
Respondent is not licensed and has not been authorized to register or use the domain name. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue.
URS paragraph 18.104.22.168: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Respondent used the disputed domain name for sending emails in the name of Complainant, asking for a line of credit.
This obviously fraudulent behavior is a proof of bad faith when registering and using the disputed domain name.
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made 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.
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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: August 08, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page