URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
lululemon athletica canada inc. v. Domain Administrator
Claim Number: FA1505001621406
DOMAIN NAME
<lululemon.sale>
PARTIES
Complainant: lululemon athletica canada inc. of Vancouver, BC, Canada | |
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US)
David M. Kramer of Washington, DC, United States of America
|
Respondent: Domain Administrator of Victoria, BC, CA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: SALE Registry | |
Registrars: Wild West Domains, LLC |
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. | |
David L. Kreider Esq,, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: May 27, 2015 | |
Commencement: June 3, 2015 | |
Default Date: June 18, 2015 | |
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 alleges that it owns the trademarks, service marks, trade dress and trade names related to the “lululemon athletica” fitness and yoga apparel businesses, including the LULULEMON, LULULEMON ATHLETICA marks, as well as other LULULEMON formative trademarks (collectively, the “lululemon Marks”). The lululemon brand is well known throughout the United States and the rest of the world as a retailer of high-quality, premium yoga apparel and related goods and services. Since as early as 1998, lululemon has prominently used the lululemon Marks in connection with lululemon’s yoga and athletic goods and its related retail store services. The lululemon Marks have become well and favorably known throughout the United States and other countries internationally. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant alleges, and this Examiner finds, that the Complainant has established worldwide rights in its well-known names and marks LULULEMON and LULULEMON ATHLETICA. The domain name <lululemon.sale> (the “Domain Name”) is confusingly similar to and wholly incorporates the LULULEMON mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant alleges, and this Examiner finds, that the Complainant has no business relationship whatsoever with Respondent. The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the lululemon Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the lululemon Marks. Moreover, because Complainant owns exclusive rights in the lululemon Marks, and has numerous United States federal and international registrations therefor, Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights in the Domain Name. The Respondent has defaulted and has filed no response in these proceedings.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Respondent is attempting to sell the Domain Name for at least US$12,500, which is well in excess of the documented out-of pocket costs related to the Domain Name. The Examiner finds that, by creating confusion through its registration and use of a domain name wholly comprised of the LULULEMON mark and confusingly similar to the LULULEMON ATHLETICA mark, Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of a competitor, which is evidence of Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the Domain Name. 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:
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:
|
David L. Kreider Esq, Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page