Frank Schilling North Sound Names has lost its first Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) on the domain name eos.blackfriday.
North Sound Names registered almost 208,000 domain names Uniregistry new gTLD’s and marks the first time North Sound has lost a domain name in a URS or a UDRP.
Due to the ruling the domain registration will be suspended for the during of the registration.
The term EOS was in the trademark Clearinghouse.
The Complaint was bought by the camera maker Canon.
Another URS was filed against North Sound Names the other day on the domain name nos.link.
The Complainant in that case is not yet listed but is likely to be the maker of the NOS energy drink.
Here is what the examiner said:
The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark.
The Examiner considers that the reproduction of the trademark EOS, by the disputed domain name eos.blackfriday, is sufficient ground to establish that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark .
Specially since the disputed domain name reproduces entirely Complainant’s trademark without any other distinctive elements.
Consequently, consumers will assume that the owner of the disputed domain name is the camera manufacturer.
n consequence, as per this reasoning, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark
Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Complainant has successfully shown evidence to substantiate its trademark rights, such as, several trademark registrations EOS in the United States of America, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, China, among others, to identify goods included in international class 9. Moreover, as established in Paragraph 8.3 of the URS Procedure, Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith in violation of the URS.
Consequently, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name, thus, the requirement set forth in Paragraph 220.127.116.11., of the URS Procedure is duly complied with.
Registering a 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, is indicative of bad faith registration and use.
Furthermore, in accordance with Paragraph 5.9.2, of the URS Procedure, a domain name redirecting to a website displaying pay-per-click links does not in and of itself constitute bad faith under the URS.
Blackfriday is the day after Thanksgiving Day in the United States in which stores and manufacturers offer promotional sales.
Hence, it is understood as an expression referring to promotions.
Taking that into account, eos.blackfriday would attract consumers interested in EOS goods.
Moreover, Complainant registered its trademark EOS with the Trademark Clearinghouse.
Hence, Respondent was aware of the trademark EOS registered eos.blackfriday.
Thus, the Examiner concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of disrupting Complainant’s business.
Furthermore, Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not fall into the category of bona fide offering of goods or services, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.
As per this reasoning, the Examiner finds that, in the present case, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.