URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Facebook Inc. v. JiangYuTao
Claim Number: FA1510001640798


DOMAIN NAME

<facebookcorp.top>
 <facebookmall.top>
 <facebookmobile.top>
 <facebookpay.top>
 <facebookshop.top>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Facebook Inc. of Menlo Park, CA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Hogan Lovells (Paris) LLP David Taylor of Paris, France

   Respondent: JiangYuTao JiangYuTao JiangYuTao of FoShanShi, GuangDong, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Jiangsu Bangning Science & Technology Co.,Ltd.
   Registrars: Jiangsu bangning science technology Co

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. Tomáš Abelovský, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: October 5, 2015
   Commencement: October 8, 2015
   Default Date: October 23, 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: Complainant has provided the following initial explanatory text, in its Complaint: “The Complainant, Facebook Inc., is the world’s leading provider of online social networking services, with more than 1.49 billion registered users worldwide. Since it was founded in 2004, Facebook has developed considerable goodwill worldwide, including in China. Today, Facebook's website www.facebook.com (annex) is ranked as the 2nd most visited website in the world. Facebook has registered trademark rights in the term FACEBOOK in many jurisdictions around the world (including in China), which are in current use (annex).” Complainant has provided following evidences: (1) printscreens of Proof of the use of its trademark in China; (2) websites screenshots; and (3) the Complainants’s trademark record (USPTO). Respondent has not provided its Response to the Complaint.

  

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:
  (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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant has demonstrated that he uses registered trademark “FACEBOOK” in many jurisdictions around the world (including China). The Domain Names reproduce the Complainant's trademark with the addition of generic terms such as "corp", "mall", "mobile", "pay" and "shop". All in one pattern. The generic terms does not diminish the confusing similarity with the Complainant's trademark. Therefore, the registered Domain Names are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Complainant has proven that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Furthermore, the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to make any use of its trademarks.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the 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 the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent has registered and used the Domain Names in bad faith and Complainant has thus satisfied paragraph 1.2.6.3 of the URS Procedure. That is so for the following reasons. First, Complainant's trademark is famous and widely used. Accordingly, Respondent must have known of this famous trademark at the time of the registration of the Domain Names and must also have known that the registration of the Domain Names was in bad faith. Secondly, Complainant demonstrated that the Domain Name <facebookcorp.top> is pointing to a commercial website. Even, the Respondent holds passively other Domain Names, it can be seen as a strong indication of his lack of rights or legitimate interests. Also, the Respondent registered the Domain Names to prevent the Complainant from using/reflecting its trademark in a corresponding domain name, and has engaged in a pattern of such conduct (other disputable registrations of famous strings in Complainantπ’s portfolio).


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. facebookcorp.top
  2. facebookmall.top
  3. facebookmobile.top
  4. facebookpay.top
  5. facebookshop.top

 

Mr. Tomáš Abelovský
Examiner
Dated: October 25, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page