Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Cheng Yu Huai
Claim Number: FA1606001679201
Complainant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II of Manhattan Beach, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Marshall A. Lerner
Complainant Representative: KLEINBERG & LERNER, LLP of Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Respondent: Cheng Yu Huai of gui yang shi, gui zhou, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «Cheng» «Yu» «Huai»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Minds + Machines Group Limited
Registrars: Alibaba Cloud Computing Ltd. d/b/a HiChina (www.net.cn)
The undersigned certifies that she acted independently and impartially and that to the best of her knowledge, she has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson sits as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 13, 2016
Commencement: June 14, 2016
Default Date: June 29, 2016
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Although Respondent 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.
IDENTICAL TO OR CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.1 of the URS Procedure since the Complainant proved its right to the valid U.S. trademark registration No. 1,851,977, first used in commerce February 26, 1993, registered August 30, 1994, covering mens’, womens’, childrens’ fiitwearm clothing, t-shirts, sweat shirts, sweat pants, socks, shorts and hats, and confirmed to be a trademark that is in current use.
Respondent does not challenge Complainant’s trademark rights.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is skechers; any added top-level domain being a required element of every domain name and the alphabetic “vip” addition, being both irrelevant for assessing whether or not a mark is identical or confusingly similar to a protected mark, the addition in this case does nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s protected skechers mark; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS
Complainant met the standard set out in 1.2.6.2 of the URS Procedure since Complainant did not authorize Respondent to register a domain name containing its protected trademark and Complainant correctly urges that Respondent is not commonly known by the mark or the disputed domain name.
Complainant further asserts that Respondent acquired no legitimate interests in Complainant’s protected mark by purchasing this domain name and holding it passively because it resolves to a parking page. See Complainant, page 2, Explanatory Text. Respondent knew that Complainant had rights in the SKECHERS mark given its registration and listing by the Trademark Clearing House. Respondent has shown neither plan nor expenditures for development. Further, Respondent filed no Response and has been silent as to any claimed rights to or legitimate interest created by any bona fide use or offering. Respondent is in default. Respondent’s plans are unknown and the Examiner presumes there are none. Further, any elusive promise or assurance that might result from a mere purchase of the name do not a bona fide use make and they do not create legitimate interest in a disputed domain name containing another’s protected mark, especially where the disputed domain named resolves to a parking page
Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
BAD FAITH REGISTRATION AND USE
Complainant satisfied the requirements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
As noted above, Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s trademark rights.
The record shows that the disputed domain name resolves to a parked page. See Complainant, paragraph 7.
The Examiner finds that Respondent registered and used or passively held the disputed domain name by putting it on a parking page used language that has a tendency to show disruption of Complainant’s relationship with its special customers. Such conduct supports a finding of bad faith. Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
The Examiner independently finds that the Complaint was NOT brought in an abuse of this proceeding and that to the Examiner’s best knowledge it did NOT contain material falsehoods.
After reviewing the Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that
the Complainant demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Honorable Carolyn Marks Johnson (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: June 29, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page