NordSec Ltd v. Evgeniy Kryukov Vyachaslavovich et al.
Claim Number: FA2207002004156
Complainant: NordSec Ltd of London, United Kingdom.
Respondents: Evgeniy Kryukov Vyachaslavovich of moscow, Russian Federation; ndndn asdddn dddnn of Moscow, Russian Federation; Nikolai Nikolaev Nikolaevich of Moscow, Russian Federation.
.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .PW Registry; Radix FZC
Registrars: Beget LLC
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: July 14, 2022
Commencement: July 27, 2022
Default Date: August 11, 2022
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 concerns three domain names registered in the name of three different persons. The Examiner, however, finds that all of the disputed domain names are under common control and can therefore be the subject of one proceeding because of the following circumstances:
- The disputed domain names have all been registered in close chronological order, namely on February 5, 2022 and February 6, 2022, respectively;
- the disputed domain names have all been connected to the nameserver of the same Russian provider; and
- the disputed domain names have all been used to send phishing emails in the name of the Complainant in which the sender has identified himself as "Brandon NordVPN".
-
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that the International trademark no. 1 566 724 NORDVPN is registered in the name of NORDSEC, 15 Bishopsgate, 05-111w, London (United Kingdom). According to the trademark register, the legal nature of the holder is “PLC”. The Complaint, however, was filed in the name of NordSec Ltd, 4 Old Park Lane, Mayfair, London W1K 1QW, United Kingdom. The Complainant has not provided any explanation in relation to these differences.
Since not only the address but also the legal form of the Complainant differs from that of the trademark owner, the Complainant's right to the asserted trademark is not doubtlessly demonstrated. Given that the URS is not intended for use in any proceedings with open questions of fact, but only clear cases of trademark abuse, the Examiner finds that the Complainant has not satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
<nordvpn-promotion.pw>, <support-nordvpn.online>, <supportnordvpn.pw>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: August 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page