Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant holds several valid RTIC trademark registrations, which precede the registration of the Domain Name. The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s RTIC mark in its entirety. The addition of descriptive terms, particularly terms that pertain to Complainant’s business, does not remove confusing similarity between the Domain Name and Complainant’s RTIC mark. See Abbott Laboratories v. Miles White, FA 1646590 (FORUM Dec. 10, 2015). Moreover, the “.store” gTLD in the Domain Name is as a standard registration requirement and as such shall be disregarded under the confusing similarity test. Given the above, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. Thus, the Complainant has proven the first element.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

It results from the evidence in the record that there are the Complainant’s RTIC trademark registrations, which predate the Respondent’s registration of the Domain Name. There is no evidence in the case that the Complainant has licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the RTIC trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating this trademark. The Complainant ascertains that Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, nor is Respondent authorized to use the RTIC mark. There is also no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has been commonly known by the Domain Name. Moreover, it results from the evidence in the record that the Domain Name is being used by the Respondent to attract Internet users to the Website, which displays Complainant’s trademark and offers Complainant’s products at a drastic discount. The Panel accepts that it is highly probable that the Domain Name was created and is being used to scam Complainant’s customers. Such use of the Domain Names does not qualify as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as well as the use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Furthermore, the Domain Name falsy suggests an affiliation with the Complainant and its RTIC trademark, as the Domain Name wholly reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in entirety and the Website displays Complainant’s official marketing materials. Given the above, there are no circumstances, which could demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests of Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. Thus, there is no evidence in the case file that refutes the Complainant’s submissions. In consequence, the Complainant has proven the second element.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

Given that the Complainant’s rights in RTIC trademark predate the registration of the Domain Name, the Respondent was or should have been aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the Domain Name. This finding is also supported by the fact that Respondent offers Complainant’s products on the Website. Also, it has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that Complainant’s RTIC trademark is well-known and unique to the Complainant. Thus, the Respondent could not likely reasonably ignore the reputation of the products the trademark identify. By reproducing the Complainant’s registered trademark in the Domain Name and the title of the Website, the Respondent falsely suggests to be an official retailer of the Complainant’s products. There is thus little doubt that Respondent intended to earn profit from the confusion created with Internet users. In consequence, the evidence in the record demonstrates that the Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name deliberately in order to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and to give credibility to its operations. For the reasons discussed above, the Complainant has proven the third element.

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. rtic-coolerbag.store