URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Nucor Corporation v. et al.
Claim Number: FA1910001864951
DOMAIN NAME
<nucor.dev>
PARTIES
Complainant: Nucor Corporation of Charlotte, NC, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Moore & Van Allen PLLC
Minnie Kim of Charlotte, NC, United States of America
|
Respondent: Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 1244926159 of Toronto, ON, CA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Charleston Road Registry Inc. | |
Registrars: |
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. | |
Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: October 1, 2019 | |
Commencement: October 2, 2019 | |
Default Date: October 17, 2019 | |
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: Nucor Corporation ("Nucor") is a public Fortune 500 company. Nucor is the owner of U.S. Trademark Registration No. 2,320,054 for the mark NUCOR, which has been according incontestable status by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In addition to the NUCOR mark, Nucor owns a number of federal registrations for other NUCOR-formative trademarks, such as U.S. Trademark Registration No. 1,126,981 for the mark NUCOR STEEL, and U.S. Trademark Registration No. 3,963,302 for the mark NUCOR VISE LOCK. In addition to its NUCOR and NUCOR-formative marks, Nucor owns the nucor.com domain name, as well as several other domain names that incorporate the NUCOR mark, such as nucorskyline.com and nucoryamato.com. |
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 disputed domain name <nucor.dev> is identical to Complainant�s registered NUCOR mark. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the generic top level domain �.dev�, indicating the purpose of offering NUCOR products. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which 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 not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark NUCOR. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the NUCOR Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the NUCOR Marks. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as NUCOR. Consequently, there is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in NUCOR and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Since Complainant�s famous trademarks are prior to the disputed domain name�s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain name, it is designed to attract users to its website where it impersonates Complainant. Customers can apparently buy NUCOR products in Respondent�s website. 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:
|
Hector Ariel Manoff Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page