The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. yanmingcui
Claim Number: FA1811001815095
Complainant: The Boston Consulting Group, Inc., of Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US), of the District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: yanmingcui of mingguang, anhui, International, China.
Respondent Representative: None
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .TOP Registry
Registrars: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co. Ltd.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 6, 2018
Commencement: November 7, 2018
Default Date: November 26, 2018
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.
Complainant, the Boston Consulting Group, is a world-renowned business management consulting firm and a recognized leading provider of innovative business solutions. Since as early as 1963, Complainant has used the trademark BCG in connection with its business. Such trademark is the subject of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 983,019. Complainant also owns the domain name bcg.com.
The disputed domain name is bcg.top.
Even though 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.
1. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is, for all intents and purposes, identical to the mark BCG, for which Complainant holds a valid national registration. The disputed domain name incorporates in full the BCG mark, adding only the non-distinctive top-level domain “.top.”
2. The Examiner finds that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name. The evidence indicates that Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the BCG mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating such mark.
3. The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name reverts to a site which informs the user that “This site can’t be located.” Such passive use of the domain name in dispute supports a finding of the requisite bad faith. Given the longstanding worldwide use by Complainant of the BCG mark, it may also be assumed that the domain name was registered in bad faith.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
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:
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: November 26, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page