URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Zhong He Yi
Claim Number: FA1905001845566

DOMAIN NAME

<skechersfactory.store>

PARTIES

	Complainant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II of Manhattan beach, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP Marshall A Lerner of Los Angeles, CA, United States of America

	Respondent: Zhong He Yi Zhong He Yi of Da Zhou Shi, Si Chuan, II, CN

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: DotStore Inc.
	Registrars: CHENGDU WEST DIMENSION DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY CO., LTD.

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.
	Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: May 30, 2019
	Commencement: June 3, 2019
	Default Date: June 18, 2019
	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

	Procedural Findings:
		Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
		Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

Findings of Fact: The Complainant stated that the disputed domain name includes and is identical to the Complainantï¿½s international trademark registration SKECHERS no. 1851977 combined with the term ï¿½factoryï¿½ . The Complainant also asserted that the addition of the newgTLD ï¿½.storeï¿½ as well as the use of the generic term ï¿½factoryï¿½ in the domain name creates an illusion that the disputed domain name is an authorized factory outlet operated by the Complainant. The Complainant further stated that the Respondent holds no legitimate interest in the trademark SKECHERS and is not licensed or authorized by Complainant to use the trademark. The Complainant claimed that the SKECHERS trademark is displayed on the disputed website which is also claimed to display unauthorized and potentially counterfeit SKECHERS branded products. The Complainant further claimed that the Respondent is using the disputed domain to sell unauthorized and potentially counterfeit SKECHERS products which directly compete with the Complainantï¿½s business as well as giving rise to the possibility of duping consumers into thinking that the goods sold on the disputed website are genuine and sold through a channel authorized by the Complainant. The Complainant also claimed that the Respondent is attempting to profit by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainantï¿½s mark. Based on the above, the Complainant further claims that the Respondent has obtained registration of the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Respondent provided no response to the complaint.

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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the generic term ï¿½factoryï¿½ does not serve to distinguish from the Complainantï¿½s trademark but only consolidates the assumption that the disputed domain relates to an authorized sale channel, that the domain name is therefore indistinguishably similar to the word mark ï¿½SKECHERSï¿½ for which the Complainant holds valid and current national registration which is in use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the ï¿½SKECHERSï¿½ trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the ï¿½SKECHERSï¿½ trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.

[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

Given the well-known status of the Complainantï¿½s trademark as well as the design of the website the Respondent was clearly well aware of the Complainant and of their rights on the trademark when they registered the domain name. Besides, the Respondent has proceeded to register and use the domain name in order to attract intentional commercial gain from internet users by way of presenting goods for sale. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

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:

The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

skechersfactory.store

Ahmet Akguloglu
Examiner
Dated: June 21, 2019

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page