Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Andrew Eastlick
Claim Number: FA1502001603554
Complainant: Foot Locker Retail, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: Andrew Eastlick of Scottsdale, Arizona, US.
Respondent Representative: Uniregistry, Corp.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Honorable Robert T. Pfeuffer Honorable, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: February 5, 2015
Commencement: February 6, 2015
Default Date: February 23, 2015
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the National Arbitration 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Footlocker.blackfriday infringes on a long held Trademark and domain name owned and used by complainant.
No response was made by Respondent and he has demonstrated no rights to the domain name.
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.
All three elements required to be proved by Complainant have been proved by clear and convincing evidence, thus discharging its burden to make a prima facie case.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
(i) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Honorable Robert T. Pfeuffer (Ret.), Examiner
Dated: February 23, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page