Facebook Inc. v. perdo antonio
Claim Number: FA1409001578641
Complainant: Facebook Inc. of Menlo Park, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP of Paris, France.
Respondent: perdo antonio of Lisbon, Portugal.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: dotBERLIN GmbH & Co. KG
Registrars: 101domain, Inc.
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 8, 2014
Commencement: September 17, 2014
Default Date: October 2, 2014
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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 is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
(i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
(ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
(iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the Community trademark registration no. 004535381 FACEBOOK, which was registered on June 22, 2011, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name incorporates a common misspelling of the Complainant’s FACEBOOK Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s FACEBOOK Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent does not have any rights in the name FACEBOOK or FACEBOK and is not commonly known by either name. It further contends that the disputed domain name is pointing to a website showing explicit sexual content and that such use is no bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Complainant’s FACEBOOK Mark is renown worldwide and that it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant's rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, it provides evidence showing that the Respondent also owns (or owned) a number of other domain names, inter alia <germanyoutube.berlin>, <faceboook.berlin>, <gayfacebook.berlin> and <xfacebook.berlin>, and therefore has engaged in a pattern of registering third parties’ trademarks as domain names as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.b., and that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website showing explicit sexual content and therefore has intentionally attempted to attract internet users to his website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the Complainant has provided sufficient evidence with regard to the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name and therefore satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<facebok.berlin>
Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: October 07, 2014
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page