URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Expedia, Inc. v. yin jun
Claim Number: FA1503001611442
DOMAIN NAME
<expedia.wang>
PARTIES
Complainant: Expedia, Inc. of Bellevue, WA, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Steven M Levy of Philadelphia, United States of America
|
Respondent: yin jun yin jun of huai an huai an shi, II, cn | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Zodiac Leo Limited | |
Registrars: Chengdu west dimension digital |
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. | |
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: March 25, 2015 | |
Commencement: March 27, 2015 | |
Default Date: April 13, 2015 | |
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
Findings of Fact: [OptionalComment] |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The registered domain name is identical to Complainant's globally well-known trade mark, EXPEDIA. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The registered domain name is redirected to a rotating series of commercial websites often belonging to Complainant’s competitors, in order to generate revenue for Respondent. Such use does not give rise to any legitimate rights or interests.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant This is a clear cut case of bad faith registration and use. Respondent has opportunistically registered and used the registered domain name comprising Complainant's well-known mark in order to generate revenue from redirecting Internet users to websites of Complainant's competitors. 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:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties’ 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(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page