URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


3M Company v. John Banovetz
Claim Number: FA2004001893884


DOMAIN NAME

<3m.healthcare>


PARTIES


   Complainant: 3M Company of St. Paul, MN, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Pirkey Barber PLLC Wendy Larson of Austin, TX, United States of America

   Respondent: John Banovetz of Minneapolis, MN, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
   Registrars: Regional Network Information Center, JSC dba RU-CENTER

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.
   Kendall C. Reed, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: April 27, 2020
   Commencement: April 28, 2020
   Default Date: May 13, 2020
   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: [OptionalComment]

  

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 


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


[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 Respondent 


The standard of proof in this URS proceeding is "clear and convincing," and Complaint has not met it burden with respect to the bad faith element. Whereas it is possible that Respondent is using the Disputed Domain Name for purposes of phishing, which if demonstrated likely would constitute bad faith, no evidence was provided that this is in fact happening. Speculation is not consistent with the "clear and convincing" standard.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

DETERMINATION


After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. 3m.healthcare

 

Kendall C. Reed
Examiner
Dated: May 18, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page