Since its registration in the defendant`s name, the disputed domain name redirects a user to a rotating list of websites. One of the redirect pages contains pay-per-click links to online games other than the complainant`s platform. Another of the redirect pages contains what the complainant calls a fraudulent Google search. A third page of redirection requests the use of personal data to what the complainant calls a fraudulent investigation. According to the complainant, a fourth redirect page asks the visitor to update their browser plug-ins by downloading what the complainant calls „fraudulent software“. The complainant is a registered public property management company with its principal place of business in Maryland, United States. It was founded in 1937 by Thomas Rowe Price, Jr. It provides, directly or through intermediaries, global investment management products, tools and services, including mutual funds, sub-advisory services, segregated account management services, records and related services to individuals, institutions, pension fund promoters and financial intermediaries. The Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA) 2013 is the most recent and only agreement governing the registrar`s relationship with ICANN. The 2013 AAR provides increased protection for registrants and a higher level of accountability for registrars, including but not limited to additional registrar posting requirements, additional compliance enforcement tools, and increased accountability to third parties. Paragraph 4(c) of the Directive lists a number of circumstances in which a defendant may demonstrate that he has legitimate rights or interests in a disputed domain name.

In his complaint, the complainant considered each of these circumstances and found no reason to believe that any of them were true. Given the worldwide registration of the mark T. ROWE PRICE and the goodwill and reputation enjoyed by the complainant in that mark with regard to financial services, it is difficult to imagine how another company could legally use the same or a similar mark without the complainant`s licence and the complainant requested on appeal that he had authorized such use. The appellant therefore argued prima facie that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Therefore, it seems very likely that the respondent (or whoever registered the disputed domain name) was familiar with the applicant`s trademark when registering the disputed domain name. The respondent, who did not file a reply, did not attempt to refute in bad faith the appellant`s allegations of registration and use. Therefore, given the subsequent use of the disputed domain name at the time of registration, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. (d) the language of the registration agreement shall be English; Your request rate has exceeded the maximum number of requests allowed per sec second. Your access to SEC.gov is limited to 10 minutes. The complainant advertised his services on the Internet under a number of domain names, including , and .

Proof of these domain name registrations is also attached to the complaint as Appendix 6. On March 25, 2018, Media Elite Holdings Limited confirmed by email to the Forum that the domain name is registered with Media Elite Holdings Limited and that the respondent is the current owner of the name. Media Elite Holdings Limited has verified that the defendant is bound by Media Elite Holdings Limited`s registration agreement and has therefore agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN`s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the „Policy“). The appellant claims rights to the GOLDEN KRUST mark on the basis of the trademark registration with the USPTO (e.B Reg. No. 2,966,992, entered on 12 July 2005). See Annex 4, e.B. 1. Registering a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to create rights to that trademark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef/Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum 28 July 2017) (concluding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the appellant`s rights to the HOME DEPOT trademark). Therefore, the Panel considers that the applicant`s registration of the MARK GOLDEN KRUST with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark in accordance with Directive ¶ 4(a)(i).

„For the purposes of paragraph 4 (iii), the following circumstances, in particular, but not limited to, if the Panel finds the existence, constitute evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: 1. The complainant, Golden Krust Patties, Inc., is a Caribbean food chain founded by Jamaican immigrants with more than a hundred restaurants in the United States. Golden Krust is considered the largest Caribbean franchise in North America and continues to grow, with new locations open almost monthly in the United States and plans to expand internationally. The appellant has rights to the GOLDEN KRUST trademark based on the trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office („USPTO“) (e.B Reg. No. 2,966,992, entered on 12 July 2005). See Annex 4, e.B. 1. Although the disputed domain name was originally registered in 2002, the respondent did not acquire ownership of the domain name until about October 15, 2017. The respondent`s domain name is identical to the appellant`s golden krust mark in that it contains the mark in its entirety and simply adds a generic top-level domain („gTLD“ „.com“.

The complainant uses trademark T. ROWE PRICE since 1937 as a trademark or service mark for goods and/or services in the United States. On 16 July 1987, it filed an application for registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (`the USPTO`) for mutual investment services in Class 36 and its application was filed on 21 June 1988 under registration number 1493517. Since then, it has registered the same trademark for other goods and services in the USPTO and other trademark registries around the world. Proof of these statements is attached to the call in Appendix 5. The appellant submits that the respondent offers the domain names for sale to the general public. A defendant`s offer of a disputed domain name for sale to the general public may constitute evidence of bad faith under policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Staples, Inc.c. lin yanxiao, FA1505001617686 (Forum 4 June 2015) („The respondent`s offer to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports the determination of registration and use in bad faith.“). The complainant provides screenshots of a website feature associated with the domain name that shows that the general public is able to make an offer to purchase the domain, with the minimum offer set at $500.00.

See Annex 16. The Committee agrees and therefore notes that offering a domain name for sale to the general public constitutes evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). In addition, the complainant alleged that the respondent`s bad faith was indicated by the use of the domain name to host pay-per-click hyperlinks to third-party websites in order to gain commercially. The complainant alleged that this use creates a likelihood of confusion with the appellant`s trademarks with respect to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or approval of the respondent`s website. Using a domain name for resolution on a page with sponsored pay-per-click hyperlinks to independent and competing third-party websites may demonstrate a respondent`s bad faith under policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See American Council on Education and GED Testing Service LLC v. Anthony Williams, FA1760954 (Forum January 8, 2018) („Hosting of the respondent`s links to the complainant`s competitors demonstrates the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith in accordance with policy „4(b)(iv)“; see also Bank of Am. Fork v. Shen, FA 699645 (Forum 11 June 2006) (on the ground that the respondent`s previous use of the domain name to maintain a web directory was evidence of bad faith, since the respondent likely benefited commercially from the collection of click fees for redirecting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites). As mentioned above, the complainant provides a screenshot of the website linked to the domain name in order to further substantiate this claim. See Annex 6.

The Panel therefore notes that the respondent maliciously registered and used the domain name in accordance with Directive ¶ 4(b)(iv) by using the domain name in conjunction with third-party hyperlinks. The panel also takes into account previous UDRP decisions in which the defendant failed to succeed, the registration of a domain name that resembled a well-known and confusing trademark, and the use of a data protection service. As regards the third plea, the complainant refers to point 4(b) of the Directive and claims that the four subparagraphs are applicable. It relies on the marketing of the disputed domain name on Sedo as evidence of the intention to sell the disputed domain name to the complainant or a competitor at an inflated price, the procedure referred to in paragraph 4 as evidence of `conduct` and the use of the disputed domain name for settlement purposes on a website providing financial services. The complainant adds that the registration and use of a domain name that resembles a trademark that enjoys a worldwide reputation and goodwill, as well as the use of a privacy service are themselves malicious acts […].