URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. See PrivacyGuardian.org
Claim Number: FA1907001853891


DOMAIN NAME

<skecherses.online>


PARTIES


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

   Respondent: See PrivacyGuardian.org See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, AZ, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotOnline Inc.
   Registrars: NameSilo, LLC

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.
   Kendall C. Reed, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: July 25, 2019
   Commencement: July 26, 2019
   Default Date: August 12, 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



   Findings of Fact: Complainant has demonstrated that the mark SKECHERS is registered with USPTO (Complainant�s Mark) and that Complainant is currently using Complainant�s Mark in commerce. Respondent registered the domain name <skecherses.online> on July 10, 2019 (Disputed Domain Name), and uses the Disputed Domain Name to direct to a website on which the Complainant�s Trademark is displayed and on which appear photographs of SKECHERS products.

  

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 


The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant�s Mark. Complainant has satisfied the required threshold requirements that it has a trademark registration from a national registering agency and is using the mark in commerce. The Disputed Domain Name differs from the Complaint�s Mark only in the addition of the letters �es� and the gTLD �.online.� These differences do not create a meaningful distinction for purposes of the URS.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent does not have a legitimate right or interest in the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has established that it has not granted authority to Respondent to use the Complainant�s Mark for any purpose. Respondent�s use of the mark is to direct to a website on which appears the Complainant�s Mark and pictures of products displaying the Complainant�s Mark. There is no indication that this use is or might be a fair use or a non-commercial use.


[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 


The Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant�s Mark is widely known, distinctive, and arbitrary. It is not reasonable to conclude that Respondent developed the Disputed Domain Name without reference to the Complainant�s Mark, and as such its registration of it could not have been innocent. Further, it is not conceivable that Respondent could make any use of the Disputed Domain Name that would not interfere with Complainant�s rights for purposes of the URS.


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:


  1. 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:

  1. skecherses.online

 

Kendall C. Reed
Examiner
Dated: August 13, 2019

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page