URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Zhao Yu Xing et al.

Claim Number: FA1603001667148

 

DOMAIN NAME

<virgin-atlantic.online>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom.

Complainant Representative: 

Complainant Representative: Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom.

 

Respondent:  Zhao Yu Xing of Beijing, Beijing, International, CN.

Respondent Representative:  None

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries:  DotOnline Inc.

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.

 

James Bridgeman, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 24, 2016

Commencement: March 24, 2016   

Default Date: April 8, 2016

 

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

 

Complainant submits that it is the owner of rights in VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC registered trademarks and has a validated entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of same. In addition, Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC names globally. Since its establishment in 1970 the Complainant’s VIRGIN group has expanded to over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries including throughout Europe and the USA, employing over 40,000 people and generating an annual turnover of Stg. £4.6 billion.

 

Complainant established the VIRGIN ATLANTIC airline in 1984, which currently carries over 4 million passengers a year with a company turnover of £2.58 billion in 2013 and had a marketing spend of £ 53, 738, 000 in 2014.

 

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark.

Despite several attempts made by Complainant to contact Respondent in an attempt to reach an amicable solution no response has been received.

 

Bearing in mind the extent and nature of Complainant’s reputation in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC brands and the fact that no substantive response has been received from Respondent to Complainant’s approach requesting that Respondent transfer the disputed domain name with no financial compensation, Complainant submits that it is difficult to find reason to believe that the disputed domain name was registered for any reason other than to sell it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of documents out of pocket costs. Complainant submits that such activity constitutes bad faith registration and use under the URS Procedure.

 

Furthermore Complainant submits that Respondent is clearly aiming to disrupt Complainant’s business through the registration of a domain name which contains Complainant’s famous brand contrary to and the disputed domain name registration has prevented Complainant from reflecting its famous mark in the domain name.

 

Finally, Complainant submits that by using Complainant’s famous brand, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract increased traffic to the site to which the disputed domain name resolves which constitutes a bad faith registration in accordance with 1.2.6.3 d. of the URS Procedure.

 

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:

“1.2.6.1. that 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.

a. Use can be shown by demonstrating that evidence of use – which can be a declaration and one specimen of current use in commerce

– was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse)

b. Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS Complaint. and

1.2.6.2. that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain

name;

and

1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.”

 

Complainant has furnished evidence of its ownership of the VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark which was submitted to, and validated by, the Trademark Clearinghouse.

 

The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC trademark as the hypen appearing between the “virgin” and “atlantic” elements and the <.site> gTLD extension in the disputed domain name may be ignored in the circumstances of this case for the purposes of comparison of the disputed domain name and Complainant’s registered trademark.

 

Respondent has failed to submit a Response and so has failed to discharge the onus of proof required to establish that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in circumstances where Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no such rights.

 

Given the distinctive character of Complainant’s VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark, the extent of Complainant’s long established reputation in the mark, and the fact that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s mark, this Examiner finds that on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith by Respondent to take predatory advantage of and unlawfully profit from Complainant’s rights and goodwill in the VIRGIN ATLANTIC mark.

 

For completeness, this Examiner notes Complainant’s submission that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract increased traffic to the site to which the disputed domain name resolves but finds that Complainant has not furnished any evidence to support this assertion.

 

 

 

FINDING OF ABUSE  or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD

No finding of abuse or material falsehood.

 

DETERMINATION

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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

<virgin-atlantic.online>.

 

 

 

James Bridgeman, Examiner

Dated:  April 11, 2016