Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. WhoisGuard, Inc.
Claim Number: FA1909001862671
Complainant: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P., of San Diego, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US), of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Registrant: WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc., of Panama, Panama, International, PA.
Registrant Representative:
REGISTRAR
Registrar: CentralNicGroup PLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: September 18, 2019
Commencement: September 19, 2019
Default Date: October 4, 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Even though the Registrant 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 suspending a domain name.
· the registered domain name is 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 currently in effect and that was in effect at the time the URS Complaint was filed; and
· Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and
· the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds as follows:
The DR. SEUSS mark was registered to Complainant with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Registration No. 5,099,538) on December 13, 2016 (USPTO Registration Certificate submitted with Complaint). Complainant is currently using that mark in connection with its business operations (Proof of Use screenshot submitted with Complaint). Complainant thus holds a valid national registration of its mark, and the mark is in current use. Further, the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.
The registrar lists the Registrant as “WhoisGuard Protected / WhoisGuard, Inc.” Neither of these names bears any resemblance to the domain name, and there is no evidence that the Registrant has been commonly known by the domain name. The Complainant states that Registrant is not affiliated with it and that Complainant has not authorized Registrant to use its DR. SEUSS mark. Further, the URS Site Screenshot submitted with the Complaint is a screenshot of the web site resolving from the domain name. It prominently features the name “Seussville” and an image of the Cat in the Hat character originated by Complainant and featured on Complainant’s own web page at <seussville.com>, a screenshot of which is submitted with the Complaint. Registrant’s web site contains the printed statement “Hey! Download Flash to get the full Seussville experience. In the meantime, visit our Parents, Books and News sections.” The web site is commercial in nature, offering a tool to search books and articles through an online database. Registrant is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate or fair use, as the resolving web site comes very close to impersonating Complainant and at a minimum falsely implies an affiliation or connection with Complainant. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Based upon the evidence discussed immediately above, it is clear that the Registrant is using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site. Further, the fact that the Registrant incorporated Complainant’s mark verbatim into the domain name demonstrates that it knew of Complainant and its rights in that mark when it registered the domain name. For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner finds that the Registrant is using the domain name in bad faith.
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.
drseuss.site
October 5, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page