validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Exhibit B which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Respondent registered the Disputed Domain on 16 June 2022 The Disputed Domain is used for a website advertising and

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � There is no information on the Respondent other than provided by the Complainant as the Respondent has not responded � Legal Findings and Conclusion � Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark under URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Determined Finding for Complainant Disregarding the gTLD club the domain name is identical to the Trademark � URS 1.2.6.2

entry with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The registered domain name codesys.site is passively held by the Respondent    Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Registrant would clearly have been aware of Complainant's mark when registering the domain name and did so in bad faith for the purpose of selling the domain name registration to Complainant or to a

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH on April 16 2014 Additionally the Complainant submits that it owns several domain names including the wording MOBIC such as mobic.info which it registered on July 31 2001 as evidenced by a copy of

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

Data issued by the Trademark Clearinghouse which proves actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 The Disputed Domain which was registered on 26 November 2020 is used for a website advertising and selling Complainant’s IQOS products as

a declaration by Trademark Clearinghouse � The disputed domain name bnpparibas.earth is identical to the BNP Paribas Trademark with the addition of the suffix �.earth The addition of the generic term earth does not eliminate likelihood or

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and is protected via registrations in at least 48 jurisdictions as set forth in the attached Annex of Rights Registrant is using the disputed domain name in connection with a website advertising it for

ist die Marke beim Trademark Clearinghouse registriert Die Beschwerdeführerin hat eine Claims Notification wegen der Anmeldung des Domain-Namens erhalten Dies belegt dass die Beschwerdegegnerin darauf hingewiesen wurde dass mit der Registrierung

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse.No Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing No Although you can use your validated trademark

mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse on October 23 2013 This establishes that the mark is in current use � The disputed domain name bnpparibas.fun is identical to Complainant's BNP PARIBAS mark since it contains the mark in its entirety The

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

Registration and Clearinghouse as well as copy of the Respondent's website    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

also registered in Trademark clearinghouse on November 26th 2013 � Complainant asserts as well that the addition of the new gTLD online does not change the overall impression of the designation as being connected to the Complainant's trademark

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant is the owner the domain name deezer.com According to the WhoIs the Complainant registered this domain name on January 29 2004 In addition to deezer.com the Complainant also owns a number

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and is protected via hundreds of registrations worldwide Further �the�domain�name� is�identical�or�confusingly�similar �to�the�MONCLER�Trademark �because�the�domain�name contains this trademark and only

with the so-called Trademark Clearinghouse which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 � � The Examiner finds that the domain name is identical to the trademark since it combines the trademark with a gTLD and so finds

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH on April 16th 2014 The Complainant also owns several domain names including the wording MOBIC such as mobic.info registered since July 31th 2001 The disputed domain name mobic.site was registered on

evidence of use by its clearinghouse SMD file� No No Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing No Although you can use your validated

evidence of use by its clearinghouse SMD file� No No Although you can use your validated trademark record as proof of use in your URS case you can independently provide proof of use with your URS filing No Although you can use your validated

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since October 23th 2013 The Complainant has shown that it has made effective use of this trademark The Respondent has not submitted a response and is therefore presumed to not refute this � As proof of

LIDL mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse This establishes that the mark is in current use � The disputed domain name lidl.gift is identical to Complainant's LIDL mark since it contains the mark in its entirety The gTLD gift may be disregarded

s claim about the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Panel recalls that according to the Complaint the Complainant registered the trademark MERCK MILLIPORE with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH on 16 October 2013 The Complaint then goes on to add

LIDL mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse on 23 September 2019 This establishes that the mark is in current use � The disputed domain name lidl-shop.website is confusingly similar to Complainant's LIDL mark since it contains the mark in its

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse as of December 11 2013 Moreover it is contended in the Complaint that Complainant and its distinctive trademark HELLO BANK are known by a significant portion of the public in several countries through its

Declaration for Trademark Clearinghouse submitted with Complaint � Complainant thus holds a valid national registration of its mark and the mark is in current use �The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's mark �

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant stated that the disputed domain toeic.store is identical to the Complainant’s trademark The Complainant further stated that the Respondent holds no legitimate interest in the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and that this should serve as sufficient proof of use for the purposes of this proceeding.� Complainant is correct as to the legal significance of the submission of a trademark to and validation of it by

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse � b ������� Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint � a ���� Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use � Complainant proved its rights

registrada en la TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH y el Demandado recibió de ésta un aviso en el momento del registro del nombre de dominio en disputa advirtiéndole que éste coincidía con la marca de un tercero En ese momento podría haber

IKEA in the ICANN s Trademark Clearinghouse No rights or legitimate interests The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the

a notice from its Trademark Clearinghouse agent informing that the Domain Name was registered in the name of Contact Privacy Inc Customer 1244422423 Complainant alleges that because of the identical match of the Domain Name with the trademark

mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse which is intended to protect trademarks in new global top-level domains and provided a certificate dated September 27 2019 confirming this registration � The disputed domain name pornhub.global was

this mark with Trademark Clearinghouse on July 24th 2015 The Respondent has not submitted a response and is therefore presumed to not refute this � As proof of use the Complainant has submitted a Signed Mark Data SMD file in connection to the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since October 23th 2013 The Complainant has shown that it has made effective use of this trademark The Respondent has not submitted a response and is therefore presumed to not refute this � As proof of

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Exhibit B which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Respondent registered the Disputed Domain on 27/01/2020 The Disputed Domain is used for a website advertising andselling

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of Complainant's rights in the WEWORK trademark It is apparent that

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse According to a document titled 2018 Year in Review which was published in the Pornhub Insights section of the pornhub.com website in 2018 alone 33.5 billion visits were made to the site and average daily

with the Trademark Clearinghouse clearly states that registrations under public opposition are not eligible for registration with the Clearinghouse see Annex 8 They were allowed to register within the sunrise period although they were in

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Respondent registered the iqos.promo Domain on 04/08/2019 The Disputed Domain is used for a website advertising and selling the

registered by the Trademark Clearinghouse � � � There is no information on the Respondent other than provided by the Complainant as the Respondent has not responded � Legal Findings and Conclusion � Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS

as well with the Trademark Clearinghouse on September 19 2013 � Consequently the Examiner considers that the requirement of demonstrating trademark rights and the usage thereof has been satisfied � URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right

from the Trademark Clearinghouse informing Complainant that the Domain Name had been registered The Complainant did nothing with this information Complainant applied for the new gTLD naspers on February 12 2015 showing that it knew of

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse These circumstances coupled with the fact that the domain name was registered in August 2019 and resolves to a website appearing to have nothing to do with Complainant�s business lead the Examiner to

by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse Exhibit B pre-dating the date of registration of the disputed domain name    Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant claims that a potential domain name registrant receives a warning notice when it attempts to register a domain name that matches a trademark term in the Trademark Clearinghouse The

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark The disputed domain name is identical to Complainant s IQOS trademark The tech gTLD extension may be ignored for the purposes of comparison

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Exhibit B which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Exhibit B which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark URS Rule 8.1.2.1 Respondent registered the Disputed Domain on 18 July 2019 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6

name According to Trademark Clearinghouse when a registrant is attempting to register a domain name that matches a trademark term he receives a warning notice Furthermore the Registrar has suspended the disputed domain name as of August 7 2019

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent and the website provided under the Disputed Domain are not in any way affiliated to the Complainant nor has the Complainant authorized Respondent�s registration and/or use of the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent and the website provided under the Disputed Domain are not in any way affiliated to the Complainant nor has the Complainant authorized Respondent�s registration and/or use of the

the Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Marks status with the TMCH is VERIFIED 5 The Registrant appears to be a serial cybersquatter as the reverse Whois search result shows Registrant owns 387 domains 125 of which are XYZ domains

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its rights on the trademark

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its rights on the trademark

was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse submitted Complainant�s current use of the YMCA trademark can also be evidenced at http //www.ymca.net/ Since 1855 Complainant has used the YMCA marks for educational and entertainment services

names via the Trademark Clearinghouse Claims rights-protection mechanism With regard to bad faith use the Complainant argues that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the disputed domain

the entry with the Trademark Clearinghouse registered for and with the US Trademark 3.534.702 under the handle 0006110000062379-1 PORNHUB registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO such as Reg No 4.220.491 PORNHUB registered

also has a Trademark Clearinghouse registered for and with the US Trademark 5218687 under the handle 0006110000089601-1 PORNHUB registered in Canada European Union and with the United States Patent and Trademark Office USPTO such as Reg No

Marks with the Trademark Clearinghouse to avail itself of the priority registration benefits during the Sunrise period for new Top-Level Domains TLDs including the org TLD For unknown reasons AutoZone was unable to register the disputed domain

trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse with handle numbers 01183214604479851460447985-1 and 01183214600283191460028319-1 The disputed domain name was registered on May 24 2018 It is currently inactive 5 Parties � Contentions A Complainant

trademark at the Trademark Clearinghouse with SMD 0000003261498183204827-1 The disputed domain name was registered on October 23 2018 It is currently inactive 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant submits that the disputed domain

trademark at the Trademark Clearinghouse with SMD 0000003241498183204007-1 virgin The disputed domain name was registered on October 1 2018 According to the evidence provided by the Complainant the disputed domain name has been used to resolve

registered by the Trademark Clearinghouse There is no information on the Respondent other than provided by the Complainant as the Respondent has not responded Legal Findings and Conclusion Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure

that was in the Trade mark Clearinghouse TMCH would in turn be notified to that trade mark owner On May 9 2018 the Respondent received confirmation of successful domain registration from GoDaddy Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Respondent

entries made at Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for VIRGIN inter alia United Kingdom trademark registration No 1009534 registered on April 11 1973 5 The disputed domain name

registered by the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name was registered on May 30 2018 There is no information on the Respondent other than provided by the Complainant Legal Findings and Conclusion Even though the Respondent has

registered by the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name was registered on June 27 2018 There is no information on the Respondent other than provided by the Complainant Legal Findings and Conclusion Even though the Respondent has

by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse 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

registered in the Trademark ClearingHouse on September 19 2013 Complainant asserts the following against the Respondent 1 The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds

was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant uses the BNP PARIBAS mark on its website under bnpparibas.com The website which the Domain Name resolves to is a blank page with information about SOLLUK GMBH & CO KG ¬ SOLLUK

was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant uses the BNP PARIBAS mark on its website under bnpparibas.com The website which the Domain Name resolves to is a blank page with information about SOLLUK GMBH & CO KG ¬ SOLLUK

received from the Trademark Clearinghouse and thus affirmed that under the mechanism of the service provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse the Respondent before registering the disputed domain name had acknowledged the rights of the Complainant

was verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant uses the PRUDENTIAL mark its website under prudential.com in connection with banking investment retirement insurance and other financial products and services since as early as 1875 and

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse This shows that the mark is in current use pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.a Although mark No 3430969 is registered in the name of Bloomberg L.P the Examiner is prepared to treat Complainant a member of

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since February 5 2014 The domain name was registered on February 27 2018 Since its registration it has resolved to a Registrar parking page Even though Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse This shows that the mark is in current use pursuant to URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.a Complainant has established this element As to legitimacy Complainant says there is no evidence that Respondent holds any

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse It is claimed in the Complaint that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s trademark WEIRD FISH since the extension clothing is directly aimed at the range of products protected by the

made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse It is contended as well that said trademarks are famous due to the amount of visits millions in connection with adult entertainment services The Complainant asserts in addition that after reviewing the

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since August 27th 2014 and the trademark BOURSO® is also registered in the TMCH since September 8th 2014 The Complainant also owns a number of domain names including the same distinctive wording as

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since July 27 2015 The Complainant declares that a Google search for the term SPIOLTO in the geographical zone of the Respondent results in multiple search results linked to the Complainant The

trademarks with the Trademark Clearinghouse to avail itself of the priority registration benefits during the Sunrise period for new Top-Level Domains �TLDs � including the �.app � TLD In early May 2018 during the Sunrise period the Complainant

ihre FON Marke beim Trademark Clearinghouse der zentralisierten Datenbank der Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers �ICANN � für Inhaber eingetragener Marken angemeldet Infolgedessen wurde der Beschwerdegegner bei der Registrierung

MOBIC with the TradeMark ClearingHouse on 15 April 2014 The Respondent is the holder of the domain name mobic.app registered on 8 May 2018 which has not been active since its registration Factual Background The Complainant is a family-owned

trademark in the Trademark Clearinghouse with the effect that the Respondent must have received notice of the Complainant �s trademark rights including in respect of legal advice and legal assistance in International Class 45 If the Respondent

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its rights on the trademark

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Providing a sample of use submitted directly with the URS Complaint a Existence of a trademark in which the Complainant has rights and is in current use Complainant proved its rights on the trademark

by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse where the mark has been registered since October 23 2013 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing

by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse where the mark has been registered since December 5 2013 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing

by entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse where the mark has been registered since December 11 2013 Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and convincing

19th 2013 submitted to the Clearinghouse The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to the above trademark and that the addition of the new gTLD suffix store is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name

registered in the Trademark ClearingHouse Complainant submits screenshot of the webpage castorama.site which directs toward a Cyrillicdrafted internet site which claims to be the website of the CASTORAMA store Complainant states that the webpage