Protossecurityusa.com

The timeline behind protossecurityusa.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.

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Single Source Security, LLC d/b/a Protos Security v. Protos Security Claim Number: FA2502002141794 PARTIES Complainant is Single Source Security, LLC d/b/a Protos Security ("Complainant"), represented by Kaleigh P. Morrison of Nixon Peabody LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Protos Security ("Respondent"), Honduras. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <protossecurityusa.com>, registered with LiquidNet Ltd. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 24, 2025; Forum received payment on February 24, 2025. On February 26, 2025, LiquidNet Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <protossecurityusa.com> domain name is registered with LiquidNet Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. LiquidNet Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the LiquidNet Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On March 3, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@protossecurityusa.com. Also, on March 3, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On March 25, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1- Complainant is the premier provider of security guard and off-duty law enforcement services that specializes in developing technology to elevate safety and security standards and has been providing such services under the PROTOS marks since at least 2007. 2- Complainant uses the "PROTOS Shield Logo" in connection with its innovative and industry leading software and security services. 3- Complainant owns United States Trademark Registration No. 6,632,478 for the mark PROTOS, United States Trademark Registration No. 6,632,479 for the mark PROTOS SECURITY, and United States Trademark Registration No. 6,835,065 for the PROTOS Shield Logo. 4- Complainant owns the domain name <protosecurity.com>, registered in 2006, and operates its primary website at the url https://protossecurity.com/. 5- Complainant's PROTOS marks and the PROTOS Shield Logo have developed considerable goodwill and a strong reputation with consumers. 6- Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name <protossecurityusa.com> in connection with a website through which the Respondent purposely seeks to pass itself off as Complainant by displaying Complainant's registered PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY 7- The disputed domain name was registered on September 16, 2022. 8- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar, and nearly identical, to Complainant's registered trademarks PROTOS SECURITY and PROTOS because it full encompasses both marks and simply adds the geographic abbreviation USA and the .com generic top-level domain. 9- There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name. 10- Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services with, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. 11- Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant, Single Source Security, LLC d/b/a Protos Security, owns trademark registration for PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY as from at least 2007 which are used in connection with provision of security guard and off-duty law enforcement services. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2022. Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) ("Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant has rights in the PROTOS, PROTOS SECURITY and PROTOS Shield Logo marks before the United States Trademark Office, Registrations No. 6,632,478, 6,632,479 and 6,835,065. See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO). Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in those marks per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The trademark is being used in connection with security services. The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY registered marks. The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants' trademarks PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY along with the geographic abbreviation of a country (USA) and the .com generic top-level domain. The addition of a geographic term is not sufficient to diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark and prior Panels have stated that. See Trip Network Inc. d/b/a Cheap Tickets, Inc. v. Sigfredo Alviera, FA0702000914943 (Forum March 27, 2007)("The Panel finds that the mere addition of the geographic term "cancun" does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and that the affixation of a gTLD to each domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis"). see also, e.g., American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. & Retail Royalty Co. v. Web Commerce Communications Ltd. / Client Care / Dina Bishop, FA 2053578 (Forum Aug. 29, 2023) (finding <americaneaglecanada.com> confusingly similar to AMERICAN EAGLE: "Here, the disputed domain names prominently start with and feature the identical AMERICAN EAGLE trademark and merely, and constantly, add a geographical indication related to countries all over the world, as well as the ".com" gTLD, and the ".co" ccTLD. Therefore, the Panel find that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"); Lady of Leisure Holdings Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 1992406 (Forum May 18, 2022) (finding <sweatybettycanada.com> confusingly similar to SWEATY BETTY); Chan Luu Inc. v. Byron Gossett, FA 1500891 (Forum June 25, 2013) (finding <chanluucanada.com> confusingly similar to CHAN LUU). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY marks, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Even though the disclosed registration information for the disputed domain name lists that Registrant's First Name is "Protos" and its Last Name is "Security" there is no organization name. The Panel finds that it is clear that Protos and Security cannot be "name and surname" and that it was an attempt to try to support the domain registration and impersonate Complainant. In addition, Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or that has any trademark rights. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the PROTOS and PROTOS SECURITY marks. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The Panel also points out that according to WHOIS information the Registrant is from Honduras and the addition of USA in the domain name makes the Panel infers that there is not good faith in it. Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith The domain registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered and first use in commerce had started. Complainant has proved trademark rights and use for many years at least from 2007, which are prior to the domain names' date of registration (2022). The <protossecurityusa.com> domain name was registered by including the exact mark and by adding a geographic term. Thus, the Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. The Panel finds bad faith in these two facts. The Panel finds that Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's fanciful exact mark. Even though there is not evidence of use, Respondent has not submitted any explanation about the reason of the selected name. Thus, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith and with the intention to take advantage of Complainant. See Leidos, Inc. v. Ronna West / Leidos, FA2411002126422 (Forum Dec. 26, 2024); see also Television Food Network, G.P. v. Food network Co., FA2501002133155 (Forum Jan. 29, 2025)(Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <protossecurityusa.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist Dated: April 3, 2025 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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