Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: Examiner finds that Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark GRINCH.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that Complainant has no business relationship whatsoever with Respondent; it has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the GRINCH mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the GRINCH mark; because Complainant owns exclusive rights in the GRINCH mark, and has numerous United States federal and international registrations therefor, Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights in the disputed domain name; Respondent is purportedly using the disputed domain name in connection with an online store that is unavailable and has a "We'll be back soon!" sign on the webpage; and it is unable to find further information about the store or store owner. Examiner finds that such a use cannot be considered a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; and inactive use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods. Whois information lists Respondent as 'Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0156025452,' and there is no record showing that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. Therefore, Examiner concludes in the absence of Response that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Complainant contends that by creating confusion through its registration and use of a domain name wholly comprised of and identical to the GRINCH mark, Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users to Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the GRINCH mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website; and therefore Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Examiner notes Complainant's allegation that Complainant's GRINCH mark has been prominently used since as early as 1998; throughout decades of use, the GRINCH mark has become well and favorably known throughout the United States and internationally; the GRINCH mark has been promoted among the purchasing public throughout the United States and internationally on an extensive and frequent basis; as a result, the GRINCH mark and the goodwill associated therewith are of inestimable value to Complainant; and by virtue of the wide renown of the GRINCH mark, and the wide geographic availability and extensive sale of Complainant's goods and services, the GRINCH mark has become highly distinctive in the minds of the purchasing public. Examiner agrees that the passive holding of a domain name does not necessarily circumvent a finding that the domain name is being used in bad faith within the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in considering whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration of it, satisfies the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior, and a remedy can be obtained under the Policy only if those circumstances show that the respondent's passive holding amounts to acting in bad faith.) Examiner finds that Respondent's inactive use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name in light of the notoriety of Complainant's GRINCH mark.

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.store