JCB Co., Ltd. v. Data Protected
Claim Number: FA2104001940322
Complainant: JCB Co., Ltd. of Tokyo, Japan.
Complainant Representative: The GigaLaw Firm, Douglas M Isenberg, Attorney at Law, LLC of Atlanta, Georgia, United States of America.
Respondent: Data Protected Data Protected / Data Protected of Toronto, Ontario, CA.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
Registrars: Tucows Domains Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Omar Haydar, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 5, 2021
Commencement: April 6, 2021
Default Date: April 21, 2021
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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The complaint and findings relate to one domain <jcbonline.cloud>. There is one Complainant and one or more Respondent(s), and no domain names were dismissed from this Complaint.
The Respondent has registered the domain name <jcbonline.cloud>.
Complainant is leading Japanese financial services firm established in 1961 and trademark registrations dating back to at least 1976 in multiple jurisdictions.
Complainant has claimed that the domain name in question is identical to their protected word or mark.
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. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use.
2. Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds that Complainant has proven that the domain name is identical through evidence of the trademark registrations. The Complainant’s trademark is registered in many jurisdictions for decades and has been in use approximately 60 years.
The Examiner further finds that Complainant has proven that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. The Complainant has neither licensed the trademark to the Respondent for use, nor has the Respondent made any claim to a legitimate right or interest to the name, whether by responding to this Complaint or vis-a-vis the content of their website.
The Examiner finds that the evidence proves the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. While the domain name could theoretically be utilized in a non breaching manner, there is no evidence of any intent as such. Further, the evidence provided by the Complainant includes the unlawful use of Complainant’s logo, what seems to be phishing content, and supporting evidence from third parties confirming the purported malintent of the site in question.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<jcbonline.cloud>
Omar Haydar, Examiner
Dated: April 26, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page