Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org
Claim Number: FA1908001857635
Complainant is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (“Complainant”), represented by Marshall A Lerner of Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org (“Respondent”), Arizona, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <skecherspt.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 15, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 15, 2019.
On August 18, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <skecherspt.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 August 19, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 2019 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@skecherspt.com. Also on August 19, 2019, 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, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On September 10, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Petter Rindforth as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the 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, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a multi-billion dollar, global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry. Complainant has rights in the SKECHERS trademark through its trademark registrations around the world, including with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered Aug. 30, 1994). Respondent’s <skecherspt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark as it includes the trademark in its entirety, along with the country code “pt” (Portugal) and a “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <skecherspt.com> domain name. Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark and nor commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent’s website prominently displays the SKECHERS trademark in connection with competing and/or counterfeit products.
Respondent registered and uses the <skecherspt.com> domain name in bad faith. The unique and arbitrary nature of the SKECHERS trademark infers bad faith. Furthermore, Respondent had actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SKECHERS trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Trademark and Disputed Domain Name
The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registration:
No. 1,851,977 SKECHERS (word), registered August 30, 1994 for goods in class 25.
The Complainant also claims to be the owner of, and thereby generally refers to, a large number of other registered trademarks for SKECHERS around the world, including, Portugal.
The <skecherspt.com> domain name was registered on April 28, 2019.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
There are two (2) Complainants in this matter: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II. Complainant informs that Complainant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. As such, Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II are both in privity with each other.
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: “It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity”.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants and the Panel will therefore treat them together as a single entity in this proceeding. The Complainants will hereafter be collectively referred to as “Complainant”, except where otherwise specifically identified.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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”).
The Complainant claims rights in the SKECHERS trademark based upon registration of the trademark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered Aug. 30, 1994). Registration of a trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that trademark. See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark). The Panel therefore holds that Complainant’s registration of the SKECHERS trademark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant next argues that Respondent’s <skecherspt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SKECHERS trademark, as the domain name incorporates the trademark in its entirety, along with the country code “pt” and the “.com” gTLD. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated trademark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Doosan Corporation v. philippe champain, FA 1636675 (Forum Oct. 13, 2015) (finding that geographic designations or terms descriptive of a complainant’s business operations do not remove a domain name from the realm of confusing similarity.); see also F.R. Burger & Associates, Inc. v. shanshan lin, FA 1623319 (Forum July 9, 2015) (holding, “Respondent’s <frburger.com> domain name is identical to Complainant’s FRBURGER mark because it differs only by the domain name’s addition of the top-level domain name “.com.”). The Panel therefore determines that the <skecherspt.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the SKECHERS trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <skecherspt.com> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SKECHERS trademark in any way. Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that the respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”). The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the at-issue domain name as “Domain Administrator / See PrivacyGuardian.org,” and no information on the record indicates Respondent was authorized to register a domain name incorporating Complainant’s trademark. The Panel therefore finds under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <skecherspt.com> domain name.
Complainant further argues that Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the <skecherspt.com> domain name is demonstrated by its failure to use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant contends instead that the domain name resolves to a competing website. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”). Specifically, Complainant contends that the domain name resolves to a website that features photographs and the SKECHERS trademark in connection with footwear products. Complainant argues that the website gives the false impression that it is affiliated with, and authorized by, Complainant. Based on the facts provided by the Complainant, the Panel fully agrees with the Complainant’s conclusions, and therefore determines that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <skecherspt.com> domain name.
The Panel notes that Complainant does not make any arguments that would fall under Policy ¶ 4(b). However, these arguments are merely illustrative rather than exclusive to support a finding of bad faith. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Admin - This Domain is For Sale on GoDaddy.com / Trnames Premium Name Services, FA 1714157 (Forum Mar. 8, 2017) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) provisions are mere illustrative of bad faith, and that the respondent’s bad faith may be demonstrated by other allegations of bad faith under the totality of the circumstances). As such, the Panel finds that Complainant’s Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) arguments are sufficient to support a finding of bad faith.
Complainant contends that in light of the fame and notoriety of Complainant's SKECHERS trademark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <skecherspt.com> domain name without actual and constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark. The Panel here finds that any arguments of bad faith based on constructive notice are irrelevant, however, because UDRP case precedent declines to find bad faith as a result of constructive knowledge. See The Way Int'l, Inc. v. Diamond Peters, D2003-0264 (WIPO May 29, 2003) ("As to constructive knowledge, the Panel takes the view that there is no place for such a concept under the Policy."). The Panel agrees with Complainant, however, that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the trademark prior to registering the disputed domain name and finds that actual knowledge is adequate evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). Complainant further asserts that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name, that features the trademark, the country code “pt”, and the “.com” gTLD in connection to a competing footwear website, indicates it had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights. The Panel agrees with this conclusion, noting that the Respondent seems to have created the disputed domain name in order to indicate that it is related to Complainant’s business activities or official shops in Portugal, and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the trademark and thus registered the domain name in bad faith.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skecherspt.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Petter Rindforth, Panelist
Dated: September 22, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page