Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Rahul Pathak
Claim Number: FA2003001888649
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 Rahul Pathak (“Respondent”), New Jersey, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <skechers-store.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 17, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 17, 2020.
On March 18, 2020, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <skechers-store.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 March 18, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 7, 2020 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@skechers-store.com. Also on March 18, 2020, 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 April 8, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry. Complainant is a multi-billion-dollar global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry. Complainant's footwear products are sold in more than 170 countries and territories around the world in over 3,550 Skechers retail stores and online through its website <www.skechers.com>. Complainant's products are also available through department stores, specialty stores, athletic specialty shoe stores, independent retailers, and internet retailers worldwide. Complainant has rights in the SKECHERS mark based upon registration in the United States in 1994.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its SKECHERS mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the generic term “store” and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized or licensed to use Complainant’s SKECHERS mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate non-commercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent must have had actual and/or constructive knowledge of Complainant’s SKECHERS mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant owns the mark SKECHERS and uses it to market footwear.
Complainant’s rights in its mark date back to 1994.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and offers for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products.
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”).
Before discussing the three elements of the Policy, the Panel will deal with a preliminary issue.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
There are two (2) Complainants in this matter: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II. Complainants simply claims that both Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II own numerous trademark registrations with United States Patent and Trademark Office and that it uses the marks in connection with the footwear goods and related retail services. Complainant argues that 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. Complainant provides evidence to that effect.
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.”
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, therefore it will treat them all as a single entity in this proceeding. Throughout this decision, the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds a hyphen, the generic term “store” r and a gTLD. Additions of a hyphen, a generic term and a gTLD to a complainant’s mark does not negate any confusing similarity between a disputed domain name and mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Starbucks Corporation d/b/a Starbucks Coffee Company v. Waseem A Ali / Micron Web Services, FA 1785616 (Forum June 8, 2018) (finding the <starbucksreal.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the STARBUCKS mark, as “the addition of the generic term ‘real’ to Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a gTLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis); see also Innomed Techs., Inc. v. DRP Servs., FA 221171 (Forum Feb. 18, 2004) (finding that hyphens and top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of the Policy). Therefore the Panel find that the <skechers-store.com> domain name is confusingly to Complainant’s SKECHERS mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the SKECHERS mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is lacking, WHOIS information can support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark.). Here, the WHOIS information of record identifies Respondent as “Rahul Pathak.” The Panel therefore finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and offers for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Sale of counterfeit products may be evidence that a respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Watts Water Technologies Inc. v. wo ci fa men zhi zao (kun shan) you xian gong si, FA 1740269 (Forum Aug. 11, 2017) (“Respondent has used the domain name to resolve to a website that mimics the color scheme associated with Complainant’s WATTS brand and displays counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products for purchase in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant… [therefore], the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering or good or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain names.
Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website disrupts Complainant’s business by offering for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent attempts to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's web site. Disrupting a complainant’s business and diverting users to a disputed domain name which sells counterfeit goods may evince bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA1762229 (Forum December 22, 2017) (“Respondent’s primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant’s toy car products. Respondent’s use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant’s business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)”); see also Affliction, Inc. v. Chinasupply, FA 1223521 (Forum Oct. 23, 2008) (finding that the respondent attempts to commercially gain and thus demonstrating bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating confusion as to the complainant’s connection with the website by selling counterfeit products.). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent attempted to disrupt Complainant’s business and commercially benefit off Complainant’s mark in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also 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.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skechers-store.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: April 8, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page