Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Domains By Proxy, LLC
Claim Number: FA1707001740956
Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Respondent: Mark Paul of Dubai, International, AE.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: ARUBA S.p.A.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas Ms., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 21, 2017
Commencement: July 24, 2017
Default Date: August 8, 2017
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.
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.
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 paragraph 1.2.6.1: The domain name at issue <virginmobile.cloud> is composed with the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN MOBILE trademarks, together with the addition of the prefix “cloud”, meaning “cloud computing”.
The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN MOBILE trademarks, for which the Complainant holds valid rights on a worldwide basis.
URS paragraph 1.2.6.2: Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name.
Respondent is not licensed and has not been authorized to register or use the domain name. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue.
URS paragraph 1.2.6.3: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the reputation of the VIRGIN and VIRGIN MOBILE trademarks, the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s trademarks rights when registering the disputed domain name.
Complainant’s VIRGIN and VIRGIN MOBILE trademarks have been submitted and verified by the Trademark Clearing House, what means that Respondent must have received a warning indicating that VIRGIN and VIRGIN MOBIE are trademarks belonging to the Complainant.
Despite this warning, the Respondent chose to continue the registration process.
Respondent uses the disputed domain name for resolving to a parking website that provides links to third parties ‘websites dedicated to mobile phones and generates pay-per-click advertising revenues to the benefit of the Respondent. Moreover the disputed domain name is offered for sale on this website.
The Respondent aims at diverting the internet users to its website and is seeking to make a commercial gain. This is disrupting the Complainant’s business.
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made 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.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<virginmobile.cloud>
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: August 08, 2017
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page