The American Council on Education successful in URS regarding GED.XYZ


The American Council on Education just won a Uniform Rapid Suspension (URS) on the the domain name The domain name was owned by Information Services Inc.


American Council on Education et al. v. Information Services Inc

Claim Number: FA1406001565698




Complainant:  American Council on Education of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America

Respondent:  Information Services Inc of Toronto, Ontario, CA


Registries:  XYZ.COM LLC



The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially, and, to the best of his knowledge, has no conflict of interests in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.

Terry F. Peppard, as Examiner


Complainant submitted: June 20, 2014

Commencement: June 23, 2014

Default Date: July 8, 2014

Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Nat-ional Arbitration Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure    ¶¶ 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the “Rules”).


Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.


Clear and convincing evidence


URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended:

The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to

a mark for which Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that it is in current use;

  1.  Registrant has no right to or legitimate interest in the domain name;


  1. The same domain name was registered and is being used by

Respondent in bad faith.

In its Complaint, Complainant shows that it holds a valid registration for the GEDservice mark, Registry No. 2,613,984, registered September 3, 2002, in Inter-national Class 041 [educational testing services], and that the mark is in current use.  Respondent does not dispute any of this.

Complainant also shows that Respondent registered the <> domain name on June 2, 2014, and Respondent does not deny this.

Identity or Confusing Similarity

There is no dispute that the <> domain name is substantively identical to Complainant’s GED mark, or that Complainant holds a valid registration for the mark and that it is in current use.  Accordingly, we so find.

Registrant’s Rights or Interests

Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent knew of Complainant and its rights in the GED mark when it registered the disputed do-main name.  There is nothing in the record to suggest that Respondent has any affiliation with Complainant or that Complainant has authorized Respondent to use its GED mark in a domain name or otherwise.  There is likewise nothing in the record to indicate that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the <> domain name.

Complainant also asserts, without objection from Respondent, that the <> domain name resolves to a web page identified to “,” at which the domain name is offered for sale.  Complainant further alleges, again without objection from Respondent, that Respondent registered the domain name for the purpose of selling it, presumably for a price greater than its costs   of acquiring it.

On these undenied facts, we have no difficulty in finding that Respondent has neither any rights to nor any legitimate interests in the contested domain name.

Registrant’s Bad Faith

Under the URS Procedure, essentially the same considerations that establish that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the <> domain name are also pertinent to an analysis of whether the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.  See URS Procedure ¶ 5.7.   Accord-ingly, a finding of bad faith in the registration and use of the domain name follows directly from the discussion above of the absence of any rights or legitimate interests accruing to the benefit of Respondent from the facts presented in the Complaint filed in this proceeding.


We find from a review of the record that the Complaint was not brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that it contains no material falsehoods.


Upon review of Complainant’s submissions, we find that Complainant has proven all three elements of the URS by clear and convincing evidence.  We therefore Order that the <> domain name be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.

Terry F. Peppard, Examiner

Dated:  July 08, 2014

Raymond Hackney

Raymond Hackney

Raymond Hackney is a writer and domain investor/consultant from Philadelphia. Raymond is the founder of and