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 The Respondent must have known of the Complainant well-known mark when registering the domain name and when using the website under the domain name as parking website with commercial links The Respondent

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since November 5 2012 The Complainant states that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademarks and domain names The Respondent registered the disputed domain name pharmaton.xyz on May 31 2016 5

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH 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

registered in the trademark clearinghouse TMCH The Complainant contemplates that the Respondent registered the domain name appropriating Skechers famous SKX trademark in order to suggest to Internet users that there is a connection between

registered in the trademark clearinghouse TMCH since 03/10/2013 The Complainant contemplates that The new GTLD wang associated with the trademark ARCELORMITTAL may refer to a potential official website of the company ARCELORMITTAL in China The

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse and provided the SMD file related to the Trade Mark Clearinghouse entry for the trademark VIRGIN MEDIA Furthermore the Complainant has provided a list of more than 100 trademarks allegedly registered in

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse consequently the Respondent received just before the validation of the registration of the disputed domain name a notification of the registration of this label as a trademark Despite this warning of

s rights via the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent registered and is passively holding the disputed domain name See Foot Locker Retail Inc v Chen Yu NAF Claim FA1606001680975 finding bad faith where Respondent knowingly registered

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since April 17 2014 Furthermore the Complainant is the owner of a numerous portfolio of domain names which incorporating the term BOEHRINGER Factual Background FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT

with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent registered the disputed domain name on 2 January 2015 and renewed the registration on 17 February 2016 Respondent claims that the name EAST BAY refers to a geographical region in the US or to

with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse These claims are not contested by the Respondent The Respondent did not file a response Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case proven

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse and therefore the disputed domain names could not possibly have been registered by Respondent without actual or at least constructive knowledge and thus a bad faith intent to capitalize on the substantial

C Foot Locker s Trademark Clearinghouse SMD file Complainant s Marks and related goods and services are well known throughout the world by virtue of the Marks longstanding use the excellence of Complainant s goods and services and Complainant s

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

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse the conclusion is that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3 b FINDING OF ABUSE or

recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse and so any registrant in any new gTLD would get a Trademark Claims Notice The Domain Name was registered in 2014 during the Trademark Claims Period The Respondent would have received a Trademark Claims

provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse f The mere registration by a non-trade mark holder of a domain name that includes a trade mark is not bad faith g The Complainant has not provided evidence of bad faith and merely relies on previous

with the TMCH Trademark Clearinghouse since 2013 Complainant submitted a signed declaration proof of use as submitted to the TMCH dated 19 September 2013 The Respondent did not file a response Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS

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 names Respondent at the time of the

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse since April 16 2014 The mark is used in relation to meloxicam a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug NSAID which works by reducing hormones that cause inflammation and pain in the body It is used to treat

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

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The disputed domain name mittal.website is used in connection with a parking page featuring pay-per-click PPC links to Complainant s activities Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse on December 16 2010 The Respondent registered the disputed domain names on October 9 and 24 2015 long after the Complainant began using its gelbeseiten.de domain name and the registration of the GELBE

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

mark ALDI in the Trademark Clearinghouse associated with ICANN New gTLD Program in order to benefit from both the Sunrise Services and the Claims Notification Services Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2015 The disputed domain

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name Determined Finding for Complainant The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way It has not been authorized

Trade Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent contentions do not stand up to scrutiny Given the repute of the Trade Mark worldwide Respondent prior notification of Complainant rights via the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent passive use

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of same In addition Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN AMERICA names globally Since its establishment in 1970 the

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse in respect of same In addition Complainant submits that it has acquired a significant reputation and goodwill in the VIRGIN and VIRGIN ATLANTIC names globally Since its establishment in 1970 the

of use from the Trademark Clearinghouse URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name Determined Finding for Complainant According to the Complainant s the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with it and

verified with the Trade Mark 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

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

verified by 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

on the relevant entries with Clearinghouse Complainant doing business as DNAINFO is a source for news and information covering entertainment education politics crime sports and dining URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to prove by clear and

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

that would create an online clearinghouse for donations of surplus goods to nonprofit Respondent has created business cards a business proposal and financial model and letterhead all relating to the collectivegoods.com domain name Complainant has

entry at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse SMD 0000003461444220878432-1 The domain name comprises Complainant mark together with the gTLD finance indicative of the kind of services banks provide The Examiner finds that the domain name is

trademarks with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH specifically the Benelux Trademark Reg No 781420 for LUXURY COLLECTION and the CTM Trademark Reg No 154500 for THE LUXURY COLLECTION Because these marks are registered with the TMCH Complainants

recorded at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse and that its rights in the ZYNGA Mark have been recognized in eight 8 UDRP prior decisions Even though the Respondent has defaulted URS Procedure 1.2.6 requires Complainant to make a prima facie case

entry made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse Complainant also argues that it has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the RICHARD BRANSON VIRGIN and VIRGIN GALACTIC names globally The Virgin Group originated in 1970 and was

the Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH ; the Mark s status with the TMCH is VERIFIED As part of the process of registering the Mark with TMCH Add2Net ownership of the Registrations was demonstrated to and its submission of evidence of

Trade Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse B Respondent The Respondent is an individual apparently resident in China C The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on July 22 2015 D Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed

with the Not 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

Clearinghouse TMCH 注册该商标ALSTOM� � 4.2 被投诉人 被投诉人几乎� �� 位于中国的个人� � 4.3 争议域名 争议域名注册于2015年9月16日� � 4.4 争议域名网站

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 with the Trademark Clearinghouse In view of the above the Complainant claims that the Respondent chose to register the Domain Names in bad faith and with full knowledge of the Complainant s Marks The Complainant further asserts that

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 Respondent received actual notice of Complainant s rights upon its acquisition of the Disputed Domain Name The Examiner finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact that the Complainant has

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

deposited with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Complainant and its subsidiaries own hundreds of domain name registrations containing the trade mark BAYER including bayer.com and bayer.com.cn The disputed domain name was registered on

trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse Because of this when the Respondent attempted to register the disputed domain name it would have received a warning notice from the Trademark Clearinghouse Despite having received this notice 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

made at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse and SMD entries 0000003261444217279733-1 VIRGIN and 0000003381444218179544-1 VIRGIN GALACTIC There is one Complainant and one Respondent The Complainant also claims significant reputation and vast amount

recorded in the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH Thus the CITIGROUP mark triggers Trademark Claims Notices to any would-be domain name registrant attempting to register a domain name in any new generic top level domain during the gTLD s Trademark

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH since July 12 2013 The Complainant owns many domain names including its distinctive such as salomon.com and salomon.ru The disputed domain name salomon.moscow was registered on July 13 2015 5 Parties

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

entry at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SMD 0000003261444217279733-1 VIRGIN and 0000003451444218179876-1 VIRGIN MOBILE The Complainant contends that it has a significant reputation and has a vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN and

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since September 30th 2013 Complainant contends that the addition of the new gTLD WEBSITE is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant trademark FORTUNEO

entry at the Trade Mark Clearinghouse under SMD 0000003261444217279733-1 for VIRGIN and 0000003421444218179717-1 for VIRGIN MEDIA The Complainant contends that it has vast amount of goodwill in the VIRGIN name globally in relation to a wide

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse since September 30th 2013 Complainant contends that the addition of the new gTLD CLUB is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant trademark FORTUNEO since

Respondent is serving as a clearinghouse for information concerning Complainant s vehicles and is selling parts and accessories exclusively for Complainant s vehicles The domain name and the name of Respondent s web site MercedesShop is

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse will receive a notification concerning such trade mark The Respondent claims that it received no such notification when it registered the Disputed Domain Name and it is not the fault of the Respondent if

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse ii 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

registered in the Trademark Clearinghouse the TMCH Although this is not disputed there is no attempt to explain why the fact that the mark was registered in the TMCH is of significance in these proceedings The Panel suspects that what the

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant s rights and therefore registered the disputed

validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name As a result the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant s rights and therefore registered the disputed

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH A letter was sent to the Respondent by the Complainant external counsel on July 8 2015 notifying the Respondent of the Complainant rights in the Starwood Marks It requested that the Respondent agree

provided by the Trademark Clearinghouse at the time of registration of the disputed domain name thus the Respondent received a notice CASUMO was a registered trademark Consequently before completing the registration of the disputed domain name

Trade Mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Respondent is Andrey G Ladner an individual of the Russian Federation The Respondent did not file a Response and consequently little information is known about the Respondent The Respondent

verified by the Trademark Clearinghouse Complainant uses the mark TERMINIX in connection with termite and pest control services in the United States and Mexico as early as 1927 The Respondent registered the domain name terminix.lat which

with the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse on November 7 2013 Accordingly at the time Respondent sought registration of the disputed domain name the Registrar was obligated to notify Respondent of the trademark registration owned by Complainant

word mark with the Trademarks Clearinghouse Accordingly the first limb of the URS procedure has been made out URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name Determined Finding for Complainant Respondent has failed to

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse TMCH The Complainants are one of the world leading hotels and/or leisure companies in the world with over 1100 properties in approximately 100 countries WESTIN hotels were introduced in1981 and are

the trademark s with the Clearinghouse before Respondent s registration of the domain name so Respondent should have received notice of Complainant s rights at the time of registration There is no evidence of use by Respondent or demonstrable

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 Bla bla Car trademark Moreover

the trademark with the Clearinghouse before Respondentâ � �s registration of the domain name so Respondent should have received notice of Complainantâ � �s rights at the time of registration There is no evidence of use by Respondent or

as evidenced by the Trademark Clearinghouse validation submitted Complainant also asserts that is owns trademark rights in a figurative design trademark for Pickup The subject domain name pickupchronopost.link is confusingly similar to Complainant

as evidenced by the Trademark Clearinghouse validation submitted The subject domain name tagheuer.link is identical to Complainant famous TAG HEUER mark for the purpose of this matter URS 1.2.6.2 Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to

LANXESS via the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to Respondent registration of the domain name Complainant uses its LANXESS mark worldwide including in China where Respondent is based In all the circumstances including the fact the domain name is

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Additionally Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Respondent asking Respondent to disable and transfer the disputed domain name back to IBM Respondent refused but stated that he could consider an

verified with the Trademark Clearinghouse IBM is the dominant element of the ibm.party domain name Respondent has merely added the party domain extension to the IBM mark Accordingly Complainant has rights in the IBM mark by virtue of its numerous

is not designed to serve as a clearinghouse for any and all disputes that happen to involve a domain name Rather it was set up to deal essentially with clear cases of cybersquatting In the present dispute it would appear that Complainant may have a

has been verified through the Clearinghouse based under the mentioned international registration under the Madrid Agreement which is supported by relevant records attached to the complaint Complainant also operates its official commercial website

mark with the Trademark Clearinghouse for the center gTLD registry and that this registration would have triggered a warning notice from the registry to Respondent which would have outlined Complainant s rights in its ELECTROLUX mark B

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse Respondent must therefore have been on notice of Complainant rights in its mark when Respondent registered the domain name Furthermore the domain name has been used in respect of a parking site to

Internet comme la Trademark Clearinghouse qui permettaient d'enregistrer ou de contester l'enregistrement de noms de domaine mais le Requérant n'a pas utilisé ces procédés de protection En conséquence le Défendeur requiert le refus du

verified with the Trademark Clearinghouse AVAYA is the dominant element of the avaya.center domain name Respondent has merely added the center domain extension to the AVAYA mark Accordingly Complainant has rights in the AVAYA mark by virtue of

under the ICANN Trademark Clearinghouse procedure and evidence of being the domain name holder for BOEHRINGERINGELHEIM under several other generic Top Level Domains It also produced evidence of a cease-and-desist letter it sent three months

recorded with the Trademark Clearinghouse The Uniform Domain Dispute Resolution Policy UDRP provides that with regard to showing bad faith registration and use under the UDRP the following circumstances in particular but without limitation if

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

by a relevant record with the Clearinghouse attached to the complaint The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant s mark as it incorporates the letter in its entirety Adding an extension red should be disregarded in this case as it is

registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse This Panel is convinced Respondent actually knew about Complainant s mark before registering the domain names See Bluegreen Corp v eGo FA 128793 Nat Arb Forum Dec 16 2002 finding bad faith where the

registered in the TradeMark ClearingHouse TMCH since 2013 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

deposited with the Trademark Clearinghouse as of November 5 2013 The disputed domain name was registered on October 2 2014 5 Parties Contentions A Complainant The Complainant has made the following contentions the disputed domain name is identical

verified with the Trade Mark Clearinghouse Complainant asserts the following regarding the Respondent 1 The registered domain name s is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1 for which the Complainant holds a

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