White Castle just lost case under the Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) policy for the domain name WhiteCastle.Space and the domain holder didn’t even respond.
The Examiner although recognized that WHITE CASTLE has trademark rights in the United States long before the domain holder registered the domain name on October 27, 2016.
However the domain name at issues is “used to redirect to some kind of blog containing political views”.
While Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered WHITE CASTLE trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he is commonly known as WHITE CASTLE or under the disputed domain name. However, Examiner notes that the dominant word elements of the Complainant are descriptive. Examiner considers that a respondent has a right to register and use a domain name to attract Internet traffic based on the appeal of commonly used descriptive or dictionary terms, in the absence of circumstances indicating that the respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the complainant’s trademark
The Complainant does not provide clear and convincing evidence indicating that the Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for commercial purposes and does not refer to the Complainant or its business on the website linked to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the domain name on September 18, 2014 in light of being put on notice that they were attempting to register a second-level domain encompassing a registered trademark. However, Examiner notes that the disputed domain name was registered on October 27, 2016. Moreover, the Complainant does not provide evidence of any notice sent to the Respondent.
Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has not been proven.
Given Examiner’s finding on the issue of rights and legitimate interests, it is unnecessary to consider the issue of bad faith registration or use. However, Examiner considered the issue, and finds that no bad faith is shown. Examiner considers that Respondent was at liberty to register the disputed domain name as a common term. There is no evidence that in making the registration the Respondent targeted the Complainant or Complainant’s trademark.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
