URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P. v. MyMusic Sp. z o.o. Sp. k.
Claim Number: FA2102001931686


DOMAIN NAME

<catinthehat.site>


PARTIES


   Complainant: DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P. of San Diego, CA, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP Eugenia Schontag of Washington, DC, United States of America

   Respondent: MyMusic Sp. z o.o. Sp. k. / Maciej Czysz MyMusic Sp. z o.o. Sp. k. of Wysogotowo, wielkopolskie, wielkopolskie, PL
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotSite Inc.
   Registrars: Key-Systems 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.
   Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: February 10, 2021
   Commencement: February 11, 2021
   Default Date: February 26, 2021
   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 established rights in the "THE CAT IN THE HAT" trademark based on its US Federal registration No. 2,939,896, registered on April 12, 2005 for a wide range of goods in Classes 9, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 24. Complainant has been continuously using the mark and the title “THE CAT IN THE HAT" in connection with its leading children’s entertainment business in the US and worldwide at least since 2003. The use is confirmed by screenshots from Complainant’s website.

  

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 the Complainant’s mark because it differs from the Complainant’s "THE CAT IN THE HAT" registered mark by the omission of “the” article and the addition of the gTLD “.site”. The general consensus is that adding a gTLD, as well as adding or omission of generic terms is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is confusingly similar to the registered mark.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Registrant is not related to Complainant and its goods and services. Complainant has not authorized Respondent to register and use the disputed domain. Respondent is not using its domain name and did not submit a response to show its rights and legitimate interests (See, Blue Max Technology v. Compudigital Industries, NAF FA0095107 (August 6, 2000): "Failure to respond to the Complaint permits the inference that the use of the Complainant's mark is misleading and Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name”). Therefore, Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the 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 


The Complainant’s mark is not only widely used in commerce, but is also known as the name of the respective character and the title of artistic works (both audiovisual and books, also aired and published in Poland where Respondent resides). What leads this Panel to the conclusion that the choice of the domain name by Respondent, who is not a native English speaker, was not arbitrary or a mere coincidence, is that this title is, to a certain degree, a form of an artistic license rather than normal use of standard English. It is therefore unlikely that the chosen domain name simply reflects a general concept of “a cat wearing a hat” or “a cat in a hat” with which Respondent came up completely independently. Therefore, Respondent was likely aware of the Complainant’s mark and title and registered the domain name for the purpose of disrupting the business of Complainant, which is evidence of 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:


  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. catinthehat.site

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: March 3, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page