Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The record makes clear that the Complainant’s subsidiary “holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use”. The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademark, as it contains the word “pastor” followed by the letter “b”. For banking services, the word “pastor” can be seen as a distinctive element of the trademarks registered by the Complainant’s subsidiary. As the disputed domain name contains the word “pastor” in its entirety together with the letter “b” which could be associated with the word “banco”, the Examiner considers that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.    Although the above is sufficient with respect to the first element of the URS, the Examiner notes that the word “pastor” is also a “dictionary word” that appears unrelated to the BANCO PASTOR trademark; the Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines it as “a spiritual overseer; especially: a clergyman serving a local church or parish” (<https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pastor>, visited November 10, 2017).  The letter “b” is the second letter of the English alphabet and can be used as an abbreviation of a name or surname beginning with the letter “b”. he Examiner considers this relevant to both the second and third elements of the URS.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered BANCO PASTOR trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. However, the Examiner observes that the dominant word elements of the Complainant are descriptive. The Examiner considers that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of commonly used descriptive or dictionary terms, in the absence of circumstances indicating that the Respondent's aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the complainant's trademark (See Harvard Lampoon, Inc. v. Reflex Publishing Inc., WIPO Case No. D2011-0716; National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Barry Preston, WIPO Case No. D2005-0424). The Complainant does not provide clear and convincing evidence indicating that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the Complainant's trademark. As a matter of fact, the Complainant does not provide any proof of use of the disputed domain name. No screenshot of the website associated to the disputed domain name is provided. The Examiner’s own research reveals that the disputed domain name is linked to a parking page of a website developing company mentioning that the domain name “isn’t connected to a website yet”. The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for commercial purposes and does not refer to the Complainant or its business on the website linked to the disputed domain name. The mention that the domain name is not connected to a website yet may indicate that the Respondent has plans to use the disputed domain name in connection with its dictionary meaning or for services that are unrelated to the Complainant. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has not been proven.

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

Given Examiner’s finding on the issue of rights and legitimate interests, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of bad faith registration or use. However, Examiner considered the issue, and finds that no bad faith is shown. Examiner considers that Respondent was at liberty to register the disputed domain name as a common term. There is no evidence that in making the registration the Respondent targeted the Complainant or Complainant’s trademark. The URS process is a narrow one – with a high burden of proof – and is “without prejudice to the Complainant… proceed[ing] with an action in [a] court of competent jurisdiction or under the UDRP,” URS, para. 8.5, where the record may be more fully developed and the factual and legal arguments not constrained by, among other things, the 500-word limit for URS complaints.

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. pastorb.online