Principal Financial Services,just lost a Uniform Resolution Proceeding on the domain name Principal.Guru
The company filed a separate URS on the domain names
principal.services
principal.center
Which case has not been decided yet but I would not expect that to go any better for Principal than this URS.
The record shows Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name was to host a webpage containing an HTML link that reads, “This domain name is for sale!” along with a stock image.
Complainant contends in relevant part that, respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name as Respondent is merely offering the domain for sale.
Respondent contends that the domain name was registered by the Respondent for future development.
The website contains a generic image and does not carry any advertisements.
Further, Respondent contends, Respondent has never contacted the Complainant with any offers to sell or lease the disputed domain.
The URS was enacted with a high burden of proof.
The Complainant must establish each element by clear and convincing evidence.
On the facts presented in this case, the issues of whether Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name, and whether the domain name was registered and used in bad faith, are intertwined.
Complainant contends that respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name as Respondent is merely offering the domain for sale.
The only probative evidence in this limited record are the link on the website hosted at the domain name which reads “This domain name is for sale and Respondent’s statement that [he] has never contacted the Complainant with any offers to sell or lease the disputed domain.” Taken together, this issue tips in favor of Complainant.
However, the mark at issue is a dictionary word with several established meanings unrelated to Complainant’s services, and Respondent states that his professional title is Principal Software Engineer. The Examiner affords Respondent’s uncontroverted statement it’s appropriate weight, but notes that an Internet search quickly found Respondent’s LinkedIn page which also listed the same title. This fact tips in favor of Respondent.
On balance, the facts presented do not convince this Examiner, by clear and convincing evidence, that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name or that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrants web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant™s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
