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:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

The registered domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a word mark: The Examiner finds that the Complainant holds a valid national or regional trademark registration and that is in current use. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s domain name <kohls.cloud > is substantially identical and confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark KOHL’S.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

The Examiner finds that the Respondent has no rights or interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not related to the Complainant’s business. The Examiner notes that the website in relation to the disputed domain name <kohls.cloud> is inactive.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

The Examiner notes that the Complainant and its distinctive trademark "KOHL’S" are known by a significant portion of the public in light of the fact that founded in 1962, the Complainant now has more than 1,100 retail stores offering apparel, shoes, accessories, beauty and home products, under both national brands and brands exclusive to the Complainant. The Examiner also notes that the Respondent has not developed demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. On those facts, the Examiner agrees with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name only in order to prevent the Complainant from registering it and reflecting its trademark in a .cloud domain name. The examiner notes that on March 27, 2018, the Complainant sent a letter to the Respondent objecting to its registration of <kohls.cloud> domain name to which the Respondent responded: “Your client is going to have to offer something substantial in exchange for our parked domain, if they would like to purchase this domain that we bought and currently have parked in our portfolio." The Examiner agrees with the Complainant that such a solicitation is a violation of § 1.2.6.3(a) of the URS Policy, in that the Respondent appears to have registered the disputed domain name primarily to profit from its sale.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

kohls.cloud

	Complainant Submitted: October 16, 2018
	Commencement: October 18, 2018
	Default Date: November 2, 2018
	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").

	Complainant: Kohl's Illinois, Inc. of Aurora, IL, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Fross Zelnick Lehrman & Zissu, P.C. Todd Martin of New York, NY, United States of America

	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.
	Ho-Hyun Nahm, as Examiner

	Respondent: Krista Goodwin of Houston, TX, US

	Registries: Aruba PEC S.p.A.
	Registrars: GoDaddy.com, Inc.