URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Eric Kenyani
Claim Number: FA1905001841855
DOMAIN NAME
<skechersstock.online>
PARTIES
| Complainant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II Marshall A. Lerner Marshall A. Lerner of Manhattan beach, CA, United States of America | |
|
Complainant Representative: KLEINBERG & LERNER, LLP
Marshall A. Lerner of Los Angeles, USA
|
| Respondent: Eric Kenyani Eric Kenyani of Maryland, HI, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
| Registries: DotOnline Inc. | |
| Registrars: Go Daddy, LLC |
EXAMINER
| The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding. | |
| Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
| Complainant Submitted: May 6, 2019 | |
| Commencement: May 7, 2019 | |
| Default Date: May 22, 2019 | |
| Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
| Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
| Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
| Findings of Fact: The Complainant has established rights in the " SKECHERS" trademark based on its U.S. registration No. 1851977, registered in Class 25 for footwear on August 30, 1994. |
|
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, 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.
[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: Determined: Finding for Complainant The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark because it incorporates its "SKECHERS" registered mark in its entirety, simply adding the generic term "stock" and the gTLD ".online". Adding a generic term, such as "stock" does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion, hence is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's "SKECHERS" trademark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the SKECHERS trademark. He is in no way related to the Complainant's business and/or authorized by the latter to use the SKECHERS trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name. Previous panels found that a respondent was not commonly known by a domain name where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain name. Moreover, the examples of use of the domain name by Respondent available on the record cannot be considered as evidence of bona fide offering of goods and services, given that Respondent does not provide any information that differentiates its business from that of the Complainant, thus creating false impression that the goods originate from Complainant or that Respondent's activity is affiliated or endorsed by Complainant. Previous Panels have found such use not be bona fide, hence Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant's footwear products are sold in over 170 countries and territories around the world. Its trademark SKECHERS is well known to consumers worldwide, hence Respondent was aware of the Complainant�s famous business and trademark �SKECHERS� at the moment of registration of the disputed domain name. Previous panels have found both bad faith registration and use in case where the disputed domain name incorporated a famous mark. The fact that the Respondent's website prominently displays the SKECHERS trademark and does not provide any information that would make it clear for potential consumers that the business of Respondent is not affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant as the trademark holder serves yet another evidence of bad faith registration and use. Finally, by using the <skechersstock.online> domain, as well as the registered marks and photographs of authentic goods Respondent is attempting to profit or is profiting on Complainant's goodwill by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's SKECHERS mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site and products offered through Respondent's website. FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant
has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing
evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Natalia Stetsenko Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page