URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Virgin Enterprises Limited v. Private Registration
Claim Number: FA1610001698605

DOMAIN NAME

<virginaustralia.space>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Virgin Enterprises Limited of London, United Kingdom
	Complainant Representative: Stobbs Julius E Stobbs of Cambridge, United Kingdom

	Respondent: Private Registration of Sydney South, NSW, II, AU

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotSpace Inc.
	Registrars: Crazy Domains FZ - LLC

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.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: October 18, 2016
	Commencement: October 19, 2016
	Default Date: November 3, 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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that the Complainant has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally. The Complainant stated that the Virgin Group originated in 1970 and has since expanded into a wide variety of businesses. As a result, the Virgin Group now comprises over 200 companies worldwide operating in 32 countries including throughout Europe and the USA. The Complainant also asserted that the Virgin Group employs in excess of 40,000 people, generating an annual turnover of 4.6 billion pounds. VIRGIN BLUE was rebranded to VIRGIN AUSTRALIA in 2011, the airline began as an internal domestic Australian operator but now flies to New Zealand. The company turnover is 2013 was 4,020 million Australian dollars. The airline is now Australia’s second largest domestic carrier and in 2013 carried 19.3 million passengers. The Complainant claimed that the registered domain is identical to the marks which the Complainant owns rights in. The complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Respondent provided no 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

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word marks VIRGIN and VIRGIN AUSTRALIA for which the Complainant holds valid national and regional registrations and that are in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the VIRGIN and/or VIRGIN AUSTRALIA trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the VIRGIN and/or VIRGIN AUSTRALIA trademarks. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.

[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

Given the well-known status of the Complainant’s trademark, the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered the domain name. In this respect, the Examiner concludes that, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain by registering and using the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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:

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:

virginaustralia.space

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: November 11, 2016

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page