URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
The Boston Consulting Group, Inc. v. Identity Protect Limited
Claim Number: FA1608001687117
DOMAIN NAME
<bcg.ltd>
PARTIES
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: Liam Barbary of Sherwood Park, Nottingham, II, USA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Over Corner, LLC | |
Registrars: Mesh Digital Limited |
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. | |
Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 5, 2016 | |
Commencement: August 8, 2016 | |
Default Date: August 23, 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"). |
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: Complainant is a world-renowned business management consulting business having presence in 46 countries and the owner of a number of trade and service mark registrations around the world for the mark „BCG”, particularly US. Regisration no. 983,019 „BCG”, registered on April 30, 1974 for the services in class 35 (corporate management consulting services), first used in commerce in October 1967. Complainant also benefits from protection of its trade name and trade dress. |
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 disputed domain name incorporates the “BCG” trademark in its entirety. Adding ".ltd" top-level domain is not relevant for the assessment of identity and/or confusing similarity between the registered trademark in question and the disputed domain name. The Examiner thus finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “BCG” trademark and trade name. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Registrant to use its “BCG” trademark or to register the domain name. Complainant has no business relationship whatsoever with Respondent. Respondent is not using the domain name for bona fide offering of goods and services. The Panel thus finds that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Given the nature of the TLD “.ltd” and the high degree of fame of Complainant’s mark, registration of the disputed domain name identical to the trademark and trade name of Complainant can be qualified as an attempt to attract commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's “BCG”mark. Respectively, by creating a likelihood of confusion Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of Complainant, which is evidence of bad faith registration. Furthermore, in view of the fame of the mark and the fact that the TLD .ltd implies that the registrant is a corporate entity, the Panel comes to a conclusion that Respondent registered its domain name having Complainant’s trademark in mind in an effort to trade off the goodwill and renown of Complainant's mark. Therefore, it is found that Complainant has made a prima facie case for all three elements of the Policy. 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:
|
Natalia Stetsenko Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page