URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. v. Songyuan Songyuan
Claim Number: FA1610001697262
DOMAIN NAME
<costco-eshop.top>
PARTIES
Complainant: Costco Wholesale Membership, Inc. of Issaquah, WA, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC
Douglas M Isenberg of Atlanta, GA, United States of America
|
Respondent: Songyuan Songyuan Songyuan Songyuan of Hiroshima, WG, II, JP | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd. | |
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. | |
Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: October 7, 2016 | |
Commencement: October 11, 2016 | |
Default Date: October 26, 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: [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 Complainant prevailed on (i) in that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use. The record makes clear that “the Complainant holds valid national registrations for the mark “COSTCO” U.S. Reg. No. 1,318,685 (registered February 5, 1985) for use with “distributorship services in the field of discount general merchandise for participating members,” and that it is in current use,” and that the mark “COSTCO” is confusingly similar to the second-level portion of the disputed domain name, as required by paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS. Accordingly, Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant contends that Registrant has no legitimate right or interest in domain name. Complainant further contends that it is obvious Registrant has made no demonstrable preparations to use domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services (given Registrant’s use of domain name to sell products also sold by Complainant – although, notably, Complainant believes that Registrant’s products are counterfeit); Registrant is not commonly known by the domain name (indeed, the Whois record shows that Registrant is known as “Songyuan Songyuan”); and, by using domain name in connection with a website selling competing goods, Registrant is obviously not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain. In the absence of proper Response to Complainant's claims, Examiner agrees with Complainant. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Examiner notes from Complainant's allegations that Complainant's marks are well known and have good reputation around the world. Complainant has submitted reliable evidence showing that by registering and using domain name in connection with a website that sells (seemingly counterfeit) shoes in competition with Complainant, Registrant has created a “likelihood of confusion” in violation of paragraph 1.2.6.3(d) of the URS. Given the circumstances above, Examiner holds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.3. 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:
|
Ho-Hyun Nahm Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page