<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Dear
All,<br>
<br>
Here are 3 example URS determinations that seem very troubling from the public
information available. As I pointed out on the call last week, the
recommendations from the WG subgroups fail to prevent what seem to be very
problematic determinations occurring. I hope all working group members will
agree this situation in the absence of further facts is totally unacceptable
and those leading the working group will take the necessary action to ensure
the initial report will include recommendations to ensure nothing like this
will be allowed to happen again.<br>
<br>
Yours sincerely,<br>
<br>
Paul.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>cfa.club<span> </span></b><span> </span><span> </span>Creation date <span style="color:red">July 17, 2017</span><br>
Registrar<span> </span><span> </span><a href="http://www.eachnic.com">www.eachnic.com</a><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Complainant submitted<span> </span><span> </span>September 19,
2019<br>
Commencement<span> </span><span> </span>October 7, 2019<br>
Default Date<span> </span><span> </span>October 22, 2019<br>
<span style="color:red">Domain </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">Suspended</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">October
25, 2019</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
Examiner<span> </span><span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Flip
Jan Claude Petillion<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm">https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm</a><br>
Claimant<span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">CFA Institute of Charlottesville<br>
Represented<span> </span>DLA Piper LLP (US) of
Washington<br>
Respondent<span> </span>Hao Ming of Beijing,
International, CN.<br>
Rationale<br>
<i><span style="color:red">The Complainant
holds that the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor
but provides no proof that the Respondent is one of its competitors. However,
the passive holding of a domain name can constitute bad faith registration and
use, especially when combined with other factors such as the respondent
preventing a trademark or service mark holder from reflecting its mark in a
corresponding domain name,</span> the failure of the respondent to respond to
the complaint, inconceivable good faith use, etc. (See e.g., Telstra
Corporation Limited, Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO
Case No. D2000-0003; Myer Stores Limited v. Mr. David John Singh, WIPO Case No.
D2001-0763; Liu.Jo S.p.A. v. Martina Hamsikova, WIPO Case No. D2013-1261). In
the present case, Respondent is passively holding the disputed domain name as
it does not resolve to any active</i></span><i><span lang="EN-GB"> website. <br>
<br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">It
is inconceivable to the Examiner that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and
its trademark rights when it registered the disputed domain name which is
identical to Complainant’s CFA registered trademark. Given the well-known
character of Complainant's CFA trademark, Respondent must have had
Complainant's trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. This
is further supported by the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed
domain name under the new gTLD “.CLUB”, which increases confusion as the Complainant’s
members can be considered as being part of a club. Moreover, Examiner finds
that, given the well-known character of the Complainant’s CFA trademark, it is
difficult to imagine any future good faith use of the disputed domain name by
Respondent. <br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Respondent
did not file any response to contest the above. Therefore, Examiner finds that
the third element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name
under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven<br>
<br>
<br>
</span></i><b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">cfa.community</span></b><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><span> </span>Creation
date <span style="color:red">September 24, 2019</span><br>
Registrar<span> </span><a href="http://domains.google.com">domains.google.com</a><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Complainant Submitted<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>October
8, 2019 <br>
Commencement<span> </span><span> </span>October 8, 2019 <br>
Default Date<span> </span><span> </span>October 23, 2019<br>
<span style="color:red">Domain </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">Suspended</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span><span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">October
23, 2019</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
Examiner<span> </span><span> </span>Dawn Osborne</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><a href="https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm">https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1862966D.htm</a><br>
Claimant<span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">CFA Institute of Charlottesville<br>
Represented<span> </span>DLA Piper LLP (US) of
Washington<br>
Respondent<span> </span>Contact Privacy Inc.
Customer 1245526592 of Toronto, ON, CA<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Rationale<br>
<span style="color:red">Effectively blank – just a repeat of the URS rules Not
even mention of what was being claimed</span><br>
<br>
<br>
<b>cfa.plus<span> </span></b><span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>Creation
date <span style="color:red">September 25, 2019</span><br>
Registrar<span> </span><a href="http://www.west.cn/">www.west.cn</a><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Complainant Submitted<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>October
16, 2019 <br>
Commencement<span> </span><span> </span>October 17, 2019
<br>
Response Date<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>October
29, 2019<br>
<span style="color:red">Domain </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">Suspended</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">October 29, 2019</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
Examiner<span> </span><span> </span>David
L. Kreider<br>
<a href="https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm">https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866970F.htm</a><br>
Claimant<span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">CFA Institute of Charlottesville<br>
Represented<span> </span>DLA Piper LLP (US) of
Washington<br>
Respondent<span> </span>Peng Cheng Li of He Nan,
International, CN<br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Rationale<br>
</span><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">“The Respondent submits in support of his Response a certificate of
qualification issued to the Respondent, Peng Cheng Li (</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:"Arial Unicode MS";color:red">李鹏程</span></i><i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">), by
the China Commodities Association and dated November 2012, along with a
business license dated 23 September 2019, pertaining to a Shanghai-based
information technology company. Respondent’s said certificates each bear
the legend: “For use as evidence in the CFA Institute’s <cfa.plus>
litigation only”. <br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
</span></i><i><span style="font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">Respondent concedes that he “had made no formal use of the domain
name” by the time he received notice of the commencement of these URS
proceedings on October 17, 2019. Significantly, moreover, the Panel notes
the complete absence of evidence to show demonstrable preparations to use the
Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the domain name, in connection
with any bona fide offering of goods or services.<br>
<br>
The Panel concludes that the Registrant intentionally sought to disrupt the
business of a competitor or use the <cfa.plus> domain name to attract for
commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line
location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s CFA
Mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of
Registrant’s product or service on that web site or location</span></i><i><span style="color:red" lang="EN-GB">, or both.<br>
</span></i><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
<br>
<b>cfa.business</b><span> </span>Creation date August
28, 2019<br>
Registrar<span> </span><a href="http://www.godaddy.com/">www.godaddy.com</a><br>
</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Complainant Submitted<span> </span><span> </span><span> </span>October
16, 2019 <br>
Commencement<span> </span>October
17, 2019 <br>
Default Date<span> </span><span> </span>November 1, 2019<br>
<span style="color:red">Domain </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri;color:red" lang="EN-GB">Returned</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">November 1, 2019</span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB"><br>
Examiner<span> </span>Richard
W. Hill<br>
<a href="https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm">https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1866971D.htm</a><br>
Claimant<span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">CFA Institute of Charlottesville<br>
Represented<span> </span>DLA Piper LLP (US) of
Washington<br>
Respondent<span> </span></span><span style="font-size:11pt;font-family:Calibri" lang="EN-GB">Domains By Proxy, LLC /
DomainsByProxy.com of Scottsdale, AZ, US<br>
Rationale<br>
“<i>Complainant states: "By creating
confusion through its registration of a domain name wholly comprised of CFA
Marks, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which
is evidence of bad faith registration<span style="color:red">."
Complainant provides evidence showing that the disputed domain name is not being
used. Since the standard of review in URS proceedings is "clear and
convincing", and Complainant does not explain why failure to use the
disputed domain name could constitute bad faith use</span>, the Panel finds
that Complainant has not satisfied its burden of proof for this element.”</i></span></p>
</div></div>