Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant satisfied the requirements of paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure, having established rights in theVIRGIN, VIRGIN ATLANTIC, VIRGINAUSTRALIA, VIRGIN TRAINS, VIRGIN MOBILE, and VIRGIN HOLIDAYS trademarks currently in use, which is evidenced by validated entries at theTradeMarkClearinghouse provided by Complainant in exhibits to the complaint. Theregistereddomainsarealmost identical to the registered trademarks, other than the addition of a gTLD and the removed space, which was necessary to meet the formal requirements to a domain name. The “Virgin” part of each of the domain names is also a household mark and a company name, which, like in many other similar cases, makes it even more confusing.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant refers to other panels findings in similar cases, such as inLufthansa.email, Mwe.email, Dunkindonuts.email, baskinrobbins.email, Playinnovation.email,Beiersdorf.email, nivea.email, Budlight.email, Thehartford.email, andEbaysupport.email, in support of its allegation about the lack of legitimate rights and interests, thus incorporating the relevant arguments by reference. On the other side, Respondent submitted a response incorporating his earlier submissions in other similar URS cases, particularly his complaint for declaratory judgment brought before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona in the case no. C-14-01922-PHX-PGR. Respondent had been involved in 34 similar cases as defendant based on the same grounds. Respectively, his arguments in defense are practically the same, so they were incorporated in his response filed in the present proceedings by reference. It is evident that Respondent does not argue against trademark ownership of Complainant. Respondent did not provide any evidence that he is known under the VIRGIN and the other trademarks. There was no permission to use these trademarks, granted to him, particularly to register the domains. At the same time, the Examiner notes that, although Respondent seeks a declaration of rights in the disputed domain name subject to the mentioned legal proceedings before the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, in paragraph 27 of his complaint he states: “Plaintiff’s business model, currently in development, would use the domain name <playinnovation.email> only as a data storage server, which identifies the server and meta data, for all email sent to the company Playinnovation”. Other than that, there are still no valid arguments in the allegations of Respondent, represented in the complaint, showing the right in the domain name, but mere allegations pointing out to a legitimate interest to use the Respondent's registered trademarks in his business model. However, no such right was granted to him by the trademark holder. The Examiner agrees with previous panels which found that this same Respondent’s business model does not result in any rights or legitimate interests. In Statoil ASA v. Giovanni Laporta, Yoyo, Email. Ltd., D2014-0637 (WIPO July 16, 2014) the Panel stated: “First of all, the Respondent does not necessarily have to register the disputed domain name and other domain names consisting of well established trademarks to establish his service…. Furthermore, the Respondent does not clearly state how he intends to monetize the disputed domain name, while it is expected that he will try to make money with his service.” It is, thus, found that Respondent does not have legitimate rights and interests in the disputed domains. Respectively, the Examiner rules in favor of Complainant finding that the requirements of paragraph 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure were satisfied.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Examiner agrees that the domain owner has demonstrated a pattern of behavior of registering domain names containing famous brands depriving brand owners from a possibility to register the respective domains. There is no ground here to speculate over conflict of lawful interests in the domains, since Respondent apparently does not have any right and lawful interests in the disputed domains. A mere wish to use these registered domains incorporating earlier registered famous trademarks to generate and efficient email courier service does not result in acquiring such rights and interests. As follows from Respondent’s submissions, he registered the subject domains with clear knowledge of Complainant’s trademark rights. Responent’s arguments, stating that he had not solicited any payment to sell, transfer or offer services related to any trademark protected domain to any trademark owner, is not really convincing since the amount of investment to which Respondent refers would require “commercialization” of the created business model. As noted by previous panels, such use disrupts Complainant’s rendition of services and other business ventures and creates confusion among Internet users as to Complainant’s purported source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s web site. See, for example, Stuart Weitzman IP, LLC, v yoyo.email, et al FA1404001554808 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 10, 2014). It thus found that the requirements of paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure were satisfied.

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:

1. virginatlantic.email
2. virgin-atlantic.email
3. virginholidays.email
4. virginmobile.email
5. virgintrains.email
6. virginaustralia.email