URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. Streamlabs
Claim Number: FA1912001875280


DOMAIN NAME

<grinch.live>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. of San Diego, CA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) Ryan C. Compton of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: General Workings (Streamlabs) / Streamlabs FOR of San Francisco, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
   Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.

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.
   Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 16, 2019
   Commencement: December 17, 2019
   Default Date: January 2, 2020
   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: Complainant owns a number of trademark and service mark registrations around the world for the marks GRINCH and THE GRINCH, including U.S. Trademark Registration Nos. 2328812 and 2784230. The marks have been used since at least as early as 1998, and have become highly distinctive in the minds of the relevant public. The disputed domain name, grinch.live, is used in connection with soliciting donations for an individual's Twitch channel, called "grinchy."

  

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:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GRINCH and THE GRINCH marks. The domain name incorporates the mark GRINCH in full, adding only the non-distinctive term "live." The evidence further establishes that Complainant owns national rights in the marks and that such marks are currently in use.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Complainant asserts that it has no business relationship with Respondent and has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the GRINCH marks or to apply for any domain name incorporating the marks. There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name or that it is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of Complainant's marks.


[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. As noted above, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the GRINCH marks, which marks are widely known throughout the U.S. and around the world, and the domain name is used to solicit donations. In view thereof, it is determined that, by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to Registrant's web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of such site.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. grinch.live

 

Jeffrey M. Samuels
Examiner
Dated: January 4, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page