URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Hapag-Lloyd AG v. Zhang Zheng Guang
Claim Number: FA1803001774861
DOMAIN NAME
<hapag-lloyd.ltd>
PARTIES
Complainant: Hapag-Lloyd AG of Hamburg, Germany | |
Complainant Representative: HARMSEN UTESCHER
Dominik Kirschner of Hamburg, Germany
|
Respondent: Zhang Zheng Guang Zhang Zheng Guang of wu han wu han shi, BJ, II, CN | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC | |
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. |
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. | |
Honorable Charles K. McCotter Jr., (Ret.), as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: March 7, 2018 | |
Commencement: March 7, 2018 | |
Default Date: March 22, 2018 | |
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 <hapag-lloyd.ltd> domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark “HapagLloyd,†which Complainant currently uses. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant No current use is being made of the disputed domain name. It leads to an error notice; “server IP address could not be foundâ€.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Registrant is not making an active use of the disputed domain name. Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark. 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:
Complainant has prevailed in this proceeding.
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:
|
Honorable Charles K. McCotter Jr., (Ret.) Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page