URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Zulily, LLC v. Privacy Guardian et al.

Claim Number: FA2103001938250

 

DOMAIN NAMES

<zulilydeals.shop><zulilymall.shop><zulilynew.shop><zulilynewshop.shop><zulilyoutletus.shop><zulilyoutletuss.shop><zulilystoreus.shop><zulilysus.shop><zulilysus.today><zulilyuss.shop>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Zulily, LLC of Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

Complainant Representative:  Davis Wright Tremaine of Seattle, Washington, United States of America.

 

Respondent:  Privacy Guardian / See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, US.

Respondent Representative:  None appearing.

 

REGISTRY  and REGISTRAR

Registry:  Binky Moon, LLC; GMO Registry, Inc.

Registrar:  NameSilo, LLC

 

EXAMINER

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, Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: March 26, 2021

Commencement: March 30, 2021   

Default Date: April 14, 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 names be suspended for the life of the registrations.

 

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Clear and convincing evidence.

 

FINDINGS and DISCUSSION

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 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:

 

There is no genuine issue of any material fact.

 

All of the domain names are registered with the same registrar and they all expire within 24 days of each other, indicating that they were all registered within that same period of time.  On this evidence the Examiner finds that all of the domain names were registered and are controlled by the same person or entity.

 

The ZULILY mark was registered to Zulily, Inc. with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Registration No. 3,868,643) on October 26, 2010 and was subsequently assigned to Complainant (TESS Certificate submitted with Complaint).  Complainant is currently using that mark in connection with its business operations (Proof of Use screenshots submitted with Complaint).  Complainant thus holds a valid national registration of its mark, and the mark is in current use.  Further, all of the domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

 

The registrar lists the Registrant as “Privacy Guardian / See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix Arizona, United States of America.”  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 ZULILY mark.  Further, the URS Site Screenshots submitted with the Complaint are screenshots of the web sites resolving from the domain names.  Their content consists variously of notices that the web site cannot be found, cups, fruit, a picture, a T-shirt, and notices of a shared IP.  Some of the sites are thus inactive and the others appear to offer goods at retail in competition with Complainant.  None of these uses can confer right or legitimate interest upon the Respondent.  The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain names. 

 

The evidence further demonstrates that Registrant is using some of the domain names intentionally and for commercial gain to attract Internet users to its site by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its sites.  This conduct fits within the circumstances set forth in Paragraph 1.2.6.3.d. of the URS and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use.  Failure to make active use of a domain name is also evidence of bad faith use and registration.

 

DETERMINATION

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 that the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of their respective registrations.

 

<zulilydeals.shop><zulilymall.shop><zulilynew.shop><zulilynewshop.shop><zulilyoutletus.shop><zulilyoutletuss.shop><zulilystoreus.shop><zulilysus.shop><zulilysus.today><zulilyuss.shop>

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Examiner

Dated:  April 14, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page