by relevant entries with the Clearinghouse It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity thus new gTLDs app does not preclude confusion of the conflicting domain with the Complainant s

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

29 international markets 1 clearinghouse and 4 central security depositories It is the creator of the world �s first electronic stock market and its technology is used in more than 90 marketplaces in 50 countries and 1 in 10 of the world �s

refers to its Trade Mark Clearinghouse entry 000000205831510567224973­1 ASOS The Complainant argues that because of the extent and the nature of the Complainant s reputation in the ASOS mark and the nature of the Respondent s use it is

also has a Trademark Clearinghouse registered for and with the US Trademark 3884412 which has been verified and is valid under the Clearinghouse handle 0006110000067462-1 The above Trademark and Clearinghouse registration has been made for

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse and pursuant to that recordation the Respondent was provided with notice of the Complainant �s rights in the REAL MADRID trademark before it registered the disputed domain name See International Business

BAIDU with the Trademark Clearinghouse and consequently the Respondent would have been notified of it on registration of the disputed domain name which was therefore registered in bad faith The Complainant reiterates that the Respondent offers

with ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse and that Respondent therefore would have been notified of Complainant trademark rights when it applied to register the disputed domain name Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed

any notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse at the time of the registration of the domain name xbet.football presenting as evidence Suarez Affidavit paragraphs 16 and 17 of Annex 1 In these paragraphs Mr Suarez the current employee of the

1XBET marks with Trademark Clearinghouse The 1XBET marks are leased to companies affiliated with the Complainant which use them in domain names such as 1-x-bet.com and 1x-bet.com The disputed domain name was registered on September 5 2017 and

details at the Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant says that an intending registrant of a domain name that conflicts with a trademark receives a warning from the Trademark Clearinghouse and the trademark holder is informed if a conflicting

registered by the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent registered nab.financial on July 16 2015 nab.insure on July 13 2015 nab.international on July 15 2015 nab.life on July 13 2015 nab.loans on August 5 2015 nab.money on July 16 2016 and

trademarks with Trademark Clearinghouse The Complainant affiliates provide online sports betting services through websites at www.1xbet.com www.1x-bet.com and www.1-x-bet.com amongst others The business has operated through the website at

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse on January 3 2017 meaning that the Respondent has registered skunkworks.agency and skunkworks.services despite receiving notification that the domain names matched a trademark registered with the

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse Therefore Respondent was provided with notice of Complainant s rights in the REAL MADRID mark before registering the disputed domain name See International Business Machines Corporation v Hka c/o Dynadot

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse In the Panel's belief the Respondent must have known about the Complainant's existence and rights at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name Furthermore the website to which the disputed

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse The SMD for this entry is 0000003261412946903992-1 VIRGIN and 0000003451498183206040-1 VIRGIN MOBILE Complainant is the owner of 149 trademark registrations for the trademark VIRGIN and 90 registrations

entry at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SDM 0000003261412946903992-1 for VIRGIN and SDM 0000003421498183205757-1 for VIRGIN MEDIA 1 and 0000003421444218179717-1 for VIRGIN MEDIA Currently the website in relation with the Domain Name does

with ICANN s Trademark Clearinghouse The complainant claimed that the registrant is using the domain name in connection with a monetized parking page that includes links for services competitive with those offered by Complainant under the

submitted to the Trademark Clearinghouse the Respondent should have received direct actual notice of the Complainant's rights in the BALMAIN trademark at the time of registration Thus it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since long before Respondent registered the disputed domain name Thus Respondent received notice of Complainant s prior rights in the MORGAN STANLEY mark when seeking register the disputed domain name yet

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since July 24 2013 The Domain Name was registered on March 15 2017 The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant argues that the Domain

notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent registered the disputed domain name paltalk.dating Respondent is not making any use of the domain name Respondent attempted to associate the domain name with a parked page provided 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 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

maintaining a computerized clearinghouse that permits its members to send accept and/or deliver flowers floral arrangements floral emblems fruits and gifts from or to customers in distant geographic locations Complainant has a robust portfolio

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 relevant entries with the Clearinghouse copies of which are attached to the complaint The Complainant has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SMDs 0000003261412946903992-1 VIRGIN and 00000034214981832057757-1 VIRGIN MEDIA The Complainant also has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally The

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SMDs 0000003261412946903992-1 VIRGIN and 000000295671498183206812-1 VIRGIN POKER The Complainant also has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally The

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SMDs 0000003261412946903992-1 VIRGIN and 000000220211498183206687-1 VIRGIN CONNECT The Complainant also has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally The

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since July 15 2013 B Respondent The Respondent is a company incorporated in China C The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on April 28 2017 D The Website at the Disputed

entries at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse provided by Complainant in exhibits to the complaint 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

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse With regard to bad faith use the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered for the illegitimate purpose of attracting Internet users to visit Respondent s website by creating a

domain names by the Trademark Clearinghouse service and sent two cease-and-desist letters by mail to the Respondent on June 23 and 28 2016 the Respondent did not reply 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant states that the disputed

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse and that the Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale for an excessive price The disputed domain name was registered on June 1 2017 The registrar s claims notification period in which the

priority in the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name is almost identical to the BANKOA trademark over which Complainant has rights Complainant's trademark BANKOA has been included in its entirety in the disputed domain name The

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and that the Respondent therefore must have been aware of the Complainant s trademark Again the Complaint did not provide any proof of evidence of such registration with the Trademark Clearinghouse The

the Mark with Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Complainant or its predecessor uses and has used the Mark to identify and promote its health and pharmacy related goods and services in the U.S since 1986 and the Mark is in current use as required

by relevant entries with the Clearinghouse copies of which are attached to the complaint 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

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Complainant JCB mark is extensively used in connection with financial services The subject domain name includes Complainant JCB mark as the dominant portion of the mark and merely appends the descriptive

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since November 26th 2013 The wording SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC is related only with the Complainant The new gTLD ISTANBUL is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the

the Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH the Marks status with the TMCH is VERIFIED On June 7 2017 LUNARPAGES was notified by the TMCH through its TMCH agent JACO Digital that the Mark was registered as a domain name lunarpages.xyz Domain

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name was registered on May 17 2016 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The disputed domain name is identical with the Complainant s trademark The Complainant is illegally using the

of pocket on line Trademark Clearinghouse 90 day third party rolls-roycemotorcars space rollsroycemotorcars tech website www net cn i e trademark-clearinghouse com/content/ongoing-notifications g com rolls-roycemotorcars-mexicocity

documents from the Trade Mark Clearinghouse that confirmed that the CG GORGONZOLA Mark see below had been registered with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse since November 14 2013 and a statement by the Complainant indicating that the Complaint as filed

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

mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse B Respondent The Respondent s contentions can be summarised as follows a The Respondent is the owner of over 20 000 domain names with the city gTLD extension The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain

Trade Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Trade Mark is a well-known trade mark in relation to beer and related products B Respondent The Respondent appears to be an individual located in China C The Disputed Domain Name The disputed

MIRAPEX w at the Trademark Clearinghouse and is the holder of a long portfolio of domain names including the word MIRAPEX The Respondent is the holder of the domain name MIRAPEX.CLUB registered on 5 February 2017 Factual Background The

registered with the Trademark ClearingHouse The Complainant also provided evidence that it owns a domain name containing the name aggrenox Aggrenox.com registered well before the Respondent registered the disputed domain name Factual Background

with ICANN s Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH program for the registration of generic Top-Level Domains gTLDs Among other services the TMCH provides warning notices to potential domain name registrants when they attempt to register a domain name

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse so Respondent was required to click on an Acknowledgment of Trademark Claim when registering the domain name The evidence further indicates that Respondent registered the domain name with the intent to

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The domain names resolve to inactive webpages 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

COMBIVENT with the Trademark ClearingHouse well before the Respondent registered the Disputed domain name on 16/01/2017 Factual Background FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT The Complainant is a family­ owned

proof of use by a Trademark Clearinghouse validated proof of use The Respondent has not filed any comments/reply to the complaint Legal Findings and Conclusion Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to

was registered with Trademark Clearinghouse and Respondent passive holding of the Disputed Domain Name does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith but all circumstances of the case must be examined to determine whether the Respondent is acting

Validation from the Trademark Clearinghouse The disputed domain name greubel-forsey.watch was registered on January 10 2017 Legal Findings and Conclusion URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven by clear and

world spanning 26 markets 1 clearinghouse and 5 central security depositories As the creator of the world s first electronic stock market its technology powers more than 70 marketplaces in 50 countries and one in ten of the world s securities

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent is required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledge Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name Respondent at the time of the

relevance of the Trademark Clearinghouse is mistaken but irrelevant here As stated in ICANN Applicant Guidebook one role of the Trademark Clearinghouse is to provide clear notice to a prospective registrant of the scope of the mark holder rights

SEITEN in ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse According to Annex 6 to the Complaint said registration took place prior to the date of registration of the disputed domain name Trademark holders who have registered their marks with the Trademark

with ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse in 2013 and Respondent therefore would have received a notification regarding Complainant mark at the time that he registered the disputed domain name Respondent also claimed on October 31 2016 that he

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of the same In addition Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally According to the Complainant the domain virginatlantic.top is

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of the same In addition Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally According to the Complainant the domain virgingames.xyz is at

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The extension vip had a claims notification period from May 17 2016 to August 15 2016 This means that the Respondent would have known of the Complainant s rights in and to the NETBET trade mark

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse since 2013 so that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant s trademarks when he registered the Disputed Domains Names that considering the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since October 23th 2013 Evidence of use for the trademark has been presented to and validated by the TMCH Complainant contends that Respondent s domain name bnpparibas.信息 is identical to the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Respondent would likewise have received a warning notice before proceeding with the registration The Respondent is not making a noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name The Disputed

as well before the Trademark Clearinghouse 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 or interest to the domain

as well before the Trademark Clearinghouse 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 or interest to the domain

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse on October 23 2013 The domain name comprises Complainant mark together with the gTLD shop which does nothing to detract from the distinctiveness of Complainant s mark and may be disregarded The Examiner

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse on October 23 2013 The domain name comprises Complainant mark together with the gTLD lol which does nothing to detract from the distinctiveness of Complainant s mark and may be disregarded The Examiner

with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent received notice and warning of Complainant s rights in the mark upon attempting to register the morganstanley.store domain name Because of the Trademark Clearinghouse notice coupled with the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the disputed domain name s registration As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainants rights in the CHANTELLE trademark Furthermore the Respondent

así como en el Trademark Clearinghouse desde Octubre 23 2013 que la marca se encuentra en uso y que el demandado no tiene derechos o interés legítimo en los dominios bnpparibas.space y bnpparibas.tech Agrega que la adición de las

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH so that the Respondent was required to click on an Acknowledgement of Trademark Claim when registering the disputed domain name The above has not been contested by the Respondent Therefore Examiner

the Mark with Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Complainant or its predecessor has continuously used the Mark to identify and promote its pharmacy benefits and other health and pharmacy related goods and services in the United States since at

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Respondent registered the domain name silit.store on October 2 2016 Respondent is in no way related to Complainant and has not been authorized to register silit.store Respondent must have been aware

with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Panel notes that Complainant has not provided evidence of this registration or of Respondent s receipt of such a notice However Complainant has certified that the contents of the Complaint are

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since April 16th 2014 MOBIC generic name meloxicam is a prescribed nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug NSAID It works by reducing hormones that cause inflammation and pain in the body It is used to

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse the TMCH With the registration of its mark with the TMCH a potential domain name registrant would receive a warning notice when attempting to register a domain name that incorporates or matches the

Trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name Determined Finding for Complainant Respondent has failed to adduce any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS complaint And 1.2.6.2 that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name and 1.2.6.3 that the domain was registered and

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse b.Proof of use may also be submitted directly with the URS complaint And 1.2.6.2 that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name and 1.2.6.3 that the domain was registered and

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse and its last renewal is dated April 16 2014 Furthermore the Complainant is the owner of several domain names that include the wording mirapex such as mirapex.com registered on February 27 1998 mirapex.de

by ICANN s Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH on or before May 14 2013 Complainant has established prima facie that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name The burden of proof on this element having thus shifted to the

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since April 17 2014 Factual Background The Respondent has registered and is using the domain in question for a domain parking website The disputed domain name was registered on June 1 2016 i.e 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 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

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

mark BAIDU with the Trademark Clearinghouse which provides the Trademark Claim services Based on the notice of the Trademark Claim provided by the Complainant the Panel however finds that the Respondent who was well aware of the Complainant s BAIDU

entries in the Trademark Clearinghouse URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and convincing evidence each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended URS 1.2.6.1 The registered

entries at 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 with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Respondent is required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledge Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name Respondent at the time of the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH URS 1.2.6.1 i a Complainant has granted an exclusive license to Seafolly to use the Trade Mark since 1977 Any use of the Trade Mark by Seafolly has been under license from Complainant URS Procedure

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since April 16 2014 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name mobic.red on May 27 2016 according to relevant WhoIs records maintained by the Registrar There is no indication in the record

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since April 16 2014 The Respondent registered the disputed domain name mobic.kim on May 27 2016 according to relevant WhoIs records maintained by the Registrar There is no indication in the record

registered in the Trade Mark Clearinghouse as of October 22 2012 The Complainant registered the domain name alverta.fr on November 14 2005 and the domain name alverta.us on October 8 2008 The disputed domain name was registered on May 26 2016 5