URS FINAL DETERMINATION

PLARIUM GLOBAL LTD v. Max Baker et al.
Claim Number: FA1709001748753

DOMAIN NAME

<plarium.online>

PARTIES

	Complainant: PLARIUM GLOBAL LTD of Herzlia,, Israel
	Complainant Representative: Sergii Bilous of Kharkiv, Ukraine

	Respondent: Max Baker Max Baker of Charlotte, NC, United States of America

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotOnline Inc.
	Registrars: eNom, Inc.

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: September 13, 2017
	Commencement: September 13, 2017
	Default Date: September 28, 2017
	Response Date: October 2, 2017
	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 states that the Complainant since it began doing business in 2009 it has begun the world’s leading game developing company with more than 250 million registered users from all over the world. The Complainant asserted that they have developed such famous games like: Vikings: War of Clan; Throne: Kingdom at War and Sparta: War of Empires; Soldiers Inc: Mobile Warfare; Pirates: Tides of Fortune; Stormfall: Age of War; Stormfall: Rise of Balur; Total Domination and Total Domination: Reborn. The Complainant owns numerous domestic and international registrations for its PLARIUM mark including: PLARIUM – community Trade Mark registered under No. 1232702 in force since 10/12/2014(International), PLARIUM – community Trade Mark registered under No. 1097090 in force since 25/09/2011(International). 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. The Respondent stated that they are a fun club of Plarium players. The respondents asserted that as the fans, they are actual patrons of Plarium. They do not have any attempt to imitate Plarium. They do not want to sell this domain to Plarium. No attempt is made to attract Plarium’s customers or confuse them.

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 mark PLARIUM 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 PLARIUM trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the PLARIUM 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

Despite the fact that the Respondent stated that the website related to the dispute is using for public benefit it will not be in affiliation with or it will not infringe the Complainant’s trademark and that their intention is not to sell the domain name to the Complainant or deprive the Complainant from the domain, the Respondent did not submit sufficient evidence for such usage of the domain name. The evidence submitted by the Complainant showed that the website related to the disputed domain has been used for trading “Scrolls” without the Complainant permission. Given the notoriety of Complainant and the content of the response, Respondent was clearly well aware of Complainant and of its rights on the trademark when it registered 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.

Respondent has alleged 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:

plarium.online

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: October 5, 2017

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page