Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. v. et al.
Claim Number: FA1910001865011
Complainant: Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. of San Diego, California, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP (US) of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.
Respondent: Elizabeth Williams of White Deer, Texas, US.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
Registrars: NameCheap, Inc.
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.
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 2, 2019
Commencement: October 3, 2019
Default Date: October 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") .
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant, Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P., is the creator of iconic children’s books, such as The Cat in the Hat, How the Grinch Stole Christmas!, and many other children’s works. The Complainant owns a number of trade and service mark registrations around the world for the mark DR. SEUSS, including a US word mark registered under No. 5,099,538 in relation to children’s books.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <drseuss.monster> on September 23, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that contains links to news articles from the online news publisher TechCrunch. Furthermore, it appears that depending on the web browser used and the time at which the Domain Name is accessed, the disputed domain name also redirects consumers to a website that offers web design and development services.
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 record makes clear that the Complainant "holds a valid national or regional registration and that [it] is in current use". The Examiner finds that the second-level portion of the disputed domain name is nearly identical to the Complainant’s DR. SEUSS registered trademark, as only the dot and space are left out in the disputed domain name. As the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, the new gTLD “.MONSTER” is of no consequence here (Facebook Inc. v. Radoslav, Claim Number: FA1308001515825). As the registered domain name is nearly identical to a word mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration that is in current use, the Examiner considers that Complainant has satisfied the first element of the URS in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.1 of the URS.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered DR. SEUSS trademark. Respondent has not submitted any evidence to prove that he or she is commonly known under the disputed domain name. There is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in DR. SEUSS and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The use of the disputed domain name to attract Internet users to a website containing links to news articles or a website offering web design services does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services as it capitalizes on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s mark. Respondent does not contest the arguments of Complainant. Therefore, Examiner finds that the second element for Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.2 has also been proven.
[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 is using the disputed domain name to redirect to either a website containing links to TechCrunch articles or a website offering web design services. In the Examiner’s view, it is highly probable that the Respondent earns money through pay-per-click links on its website. Redirecting the domain name to a website can be an indication of bad faith as such when it is done for commercial gain (See VistaPrint USA, Inc. v. Electric Attic, NAF Case No. 124516). The use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent indicates that the disputed domain name is used to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's DR. SEUSS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website. The Complainant is subsequently also prevented from reflecting its trademark in the corresponding disputed domain name.
The Respondent also failed to respond to the complaint in accordance with the Rules. It is inconceivable to the Examiner that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and the DR. SEUSS trademark when it registered the disputed domain name: it is nearly identical to the DR. SEUSS trademark and was registered under the new gTLD “.MONSTER”. This increases the confusion with the Complainant’s DR. SEUSS trademark as monsters are part of the Complainant’s children’s books.
Additionally, the use of a privacy service by the Respondent indicates that the Respondent has taken active steps to conceal its identity, which may further support an inference of bad faith in light of the circumstances in which the service or the domain name is used.
Therefore, the Examiner finds that the third element for the Complainant to obtain the suspension of a domain name under URS 1.2.6.3 has been proven.
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.monster>
Flip Jan Claude Petillion, Examiner
Dated: October 23, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page