URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Morgan Stanley v. Yuan Bei, et al.
Claim Number: FA1506001625638
DOMAIN NAME
<morganstanley.club>
PARTIES
Complainant: Morgan Stanley of New York, NY, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Cowan, Liebowitz & Latman, P.C.
Eric J. Shimanoff of New York, NY, United States of America
|
Respondent: Yuan Bei Yuan Bei of Chang Sha Shi, Hu Nan, II, China | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC | |
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn) |
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. | |
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: June 23, 2015 | |
Commencement: June 24, 2015 | |
Default Date: July 9, 2015 | |
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 registered domain name is identical to Complainant's well-known MORGAN STANLEY trade mark (the "Trade Mark"), used by Complainant since 1935 and registered in numerous jurisdictions worldwide. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent has made no use of the registered domain name and has not provided any evidence to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the registered domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Given the repute of the Trade Mark, and the fact the registered domain name is identical to the Trade Mark, the Examiner has no hesitation in concluding that Respondent must have known of Complainant and of Complainant's rights in the Trade Mark at the time of registration of the registered domain name. In all the circumstances, the Examiner finds that Respondent's registration and passive use of the registered domain name amounts to bad faith registration and use. 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:
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:
|
Mr. Sebastian Matthew White Hughes Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page