Torusinvest.com

The timeline behind torusinvest.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Torus Insurance Holdings Limited v. Nadezha Kokourina Case No. D2011-2259 1. The Parties Complainant is Torus Insurance Holdings Limited of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, represented by Graham Watt & Co LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (hereby “United Kingdom”) . Respondent is Nadezha Kokourina of London, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <torusinvest.com> is registered with 1&1 Internet AG. 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 22, 2011. On December 22, 2011, the Center transmitted by email to 1&1 Internet AG a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 23, 2011, 1&1 Internet AG transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 11, 2012. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 31, 2012. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on February 2, 2012. The Center appointed Lynda J. Zadra-Symes as the sole panelist in this matter on February 14, 2012. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complainant provides insurance underwriting, insurance brokerage and related services to a global client base through its European, United States of America and Bermudian based insurance subsidiaries. Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations covering services in class 36 of the Nice Classification, including provision of insurance services, insurance underwriting, reinsurance and assurance services, consultancy services relating to insurance and other related services: - CTM Registration No. 6847495 for the trademark TORUS INSURANCE (& Device); - CTM Registration No. 6529648 for the trademark TORUS INSURANCE; - CTM Registration No. 8311474 for the trademark TORUS; - United States Registration No. 3906401 for the trademark TORUS. The disputed domain name was created on August 19, 2011. On October 3, 2011, Complainant’s counsel sent a letter to Respondent demanding transfer of the disputed domain name. Respondent did not respond to that letter. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that the disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s TORUS trademark in its entirety, that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s TORUS trademark in its entirety. In this Panel’s view, the addition of the descriptive term “invest” does not add any distinctive element. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademark and consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is met. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests There is no evidence of Respondent’s use of or demonstrable preparation to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Nothing in the contact information for Respondent, in the publicly available WhoIs, implies that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Complainant contends that the disputed domain name resolves to generic search engines which include links to websites offering investment and other related services, which could conflict with Complainant’s activities. Complainant submitted a printout of the generic webpage located at the disputed domain name, which lists three links. As of the date of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a generic temporary holding webpage that does not indicate any business or other activities of Respondent. The website does display one link to a company that provides company research services that could be used for investment purposes. The Panel finds that Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and therefore, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Complainant contends that the links to Respondent’s website located at the disputed domain name indicate that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of Respondent’s website. In addition, Complainant contends that Respondent ignored Complainant’s request to transfer the disputed domain name. Such conduct, particularly in view of Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complaint, has been held to constitute bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, and consequently, paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is met. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <torusinvest.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Lynda J. Zadra-Symes Sole Panelist Dated: March 2, 2012

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.