URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


INFOBAE v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA2009001911369


DOMAIN NAME

<infobae.live>


PARTIES


   Complainant: INFOBAE Marcos Stupenengo of Miami Beach, FL, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: INFOBAE Marcos Stupenengo of Miami Beach, FL, United States of America

   Respondent: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc. of Panama, Panama, II, PA
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

EXAMINER


   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.
   Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: September 6, 2020
   Commencement: September 8, 2020
   Default Date: September 23, 2020
   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").

RELIEF SOUGHT


   Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.

STANDARD OF REVIEW


   Clear and convincing evidence.

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: N/A - There is only one Complainant and one trademark.
      Multiple Respondents: N/A - There appears to be only one Respondent and one domain name.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant asserts ownership in a mark INFOBAE as well as ownership of a domain name <infobae.com>. Complainant states its mark and domain name are being attacked by AI robots that are stealing Complainant's content and replicating it on the resolving website of the disputed domain name. Complainant accuses Respondent of creating a fake website that jeopardizes Complainant's business as the "#1 online news source worldwide."

  

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 1.2.6.1] 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 Respondent 


The Complaint provides insufficient information regarding the elements of URS 1.2.6.1. There is no support provided to specify what mark is being relied on relative to the list of marks provided in the trademark information, nor any date(s) of validity for the mark, or proof of Complainant's alleged ownership of the mark. The Complaint does not specifically address URS 1.2.6.1. at all.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 


The Complaint fails to specifically address URS 1.2.6.2 at all.


[URS 1.2.6.3] 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 


The Complaint does not specifically provide any support to address URS 1.2.6.3. The only portion of the Complaint that specifically addresses ANY portion of the URS is quoted in full below; "1. [if URS] The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3] such as: [if .usRS] The domain name(s) was/were registered or are being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3] such as: Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor"


FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD


The Examiner may find 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. 

There was no answer filed by the Respondent in this case alleging any assertions of abuse or material falsehood. The Complaint was uncontested and there was nothing from its face that indicated an abuse of the URS process.


DETERMINATION


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. infobae.live

 

Darryl C. Wilson
Examiner
Dated: September 27, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page