Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Ken Hoover
Claim Number: FA1907001852021
Complainant is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (“Complainant”), represented by Marshall A Lerner of Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Ken Hoover (“Respondent”), Ohio, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <skechers.in.net>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant participated in the mandatory CentralNic Mediation, and the mediation process was terminated on July 8, 2019.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 15, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 15, 2019.
On July 16, 2019, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <skechers.in.net> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with CentralNic Dispute Resolution Policy (the “CDRP Policy”).
On July 16, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 5, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@skechers.in.net. Also on July 16, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default
On August 7, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the “Panel”) finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules to the CDRP Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, the Forum’s Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any Response from Respondent. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the CDRP Policy, CDRP Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, “Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
There are two Complainants in this matter: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II. Complainant Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc. The Panel finds that there is a sufficient nexus between the Complainants, and elects to treat them as a single entity in this proceeding, and the Complainants will be collectively referred to as “Complainant.”
A. Complainant
1. Respondent’s <skechers.in.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKECHERS mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <skechers.in.net> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <skechers.in.net> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant is a multi-billion dollar global leader in the life footwear industry. Complainant holds a registration for the SKECHERS mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered Aug. 30, 1994).
Respondent registered the <skechers.in.net> domain name on September 12, 2018, and uses it to resolve to an inactive, parked website.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The CDRP also requires that Complainant have participated in a CentralNic Mediation, and that said mediation must have been terminated prior to the consideration of the Complaint.
Given the similarity between the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”) and the CDRP Policy, the Panel will draw upon UDRP precedent as applicable in rendering its decision.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the SKECHERS mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Samy Yosef / Express Transporting, FA 1738124 (Forum July 28, 2017) (finding that registration with the USPTO was sufficient to establish the complainant’s rights in the HOME DEPOT mark).
Respondent’s <skechers.in.net> domain name incorporates the SKECHERS mark in its entirety and adds the subdomains “.in” and “.net”. Such changes are not sufficient to distinguish a domain name from an incorporated mark in a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Dansko, LLC v. zhang wu, FA 1757745 (Forum Dec. 12, 2017) (finding the <danskoshoes.us.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to the DANSKO mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), despite the addition of the “.us” ccTLD and the “.com” gTLD). The Panel thus finds that Respondent’s <skechers.in.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKECHERS mark.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <skechers.in.net> domain name, as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the SKECHERS mark in any way. The WHOIS information of record identifies the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Ken Hoover.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <skechers.in.net> domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Usama Ramzan, FA 1737750 (Forum July 26, 2017) (“We begin by noting that Complainant contends, and Respondent does not deny, that Respondent has not been commonly known by the <marlborocoupon.us> domain name, and that Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the MARLBORO mark in any way. Moreover, the pertinent WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the domain name only as “Usama Ramzan,” which does not resemble the domain name. On this record, we conclude that Respondent has not been commonly known by the challenged domain name so as to have acquired rights to or legitimate interests in it within the purview of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).”).
Complainant also asserts that Respondent’s inactive holding of the parked page at <skechers.in.net> indicates that it does not have rights or legitimate interests in that domain name. Inactive holding of a domain name does not demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name). Complainant demonstrates that the dipsuted domain name does not resolve to an active webpage. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant asserts that Respondent’s failure to make an active use of the <skechers.in.net> domain name is evidence of its bad faith. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See VideoLink, Inc. v. Xantech Corporation, FA1503001608735 (Forum May 12, 2015) (“Failure to actively use a domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”).
Complainant also contends that, in light of the fame and unique character of Complainant's SKECHERS mark, it is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the <skechers.in.net> domain name without knowledge of Complainant's rights in the mark. The Panel agrees and finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SKECHERS mark, constituting bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”). The Panel may agree and find Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark and thus registered the name in bad faith.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the CDRP Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skechers.in.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: August 8, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page