URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA2106001951178


DOMAIN NAME

<rticcoolers.shop>
 <rticoutdoors.sale>


PARTIES


   Complainant: RTIC Outdoors, LLC of Houston, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Fish & Richardson P.C. Nancy Ly of Minneapolis, MN, United States of America

   Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: GMO Registry, Inc.,Dog Beach, LLC
   Registrars: Dynadot, 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: June 15, 2021
   Commencement: June 17, 2021
   Default Date: July 2, 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


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Respondents: Given that both disputed domain names resolve to virtually identical webpages as follows from the provided evidence; both domains were registered consecutively within a very short period of time, and both domains are registered with the same Registrar (Dynadot, LLC), the Panel agrees that there are sufficient grounds to conclude that the domain names at issue are controlled by the same person/entity.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant has established rights in the "RTIC" trademark (RTIC wordmark, RTIC logo), having provided evidence of numerous registrations worldwide, owned by and through its predecessors-in-interest (Exhibit 2 to the complaint). The evidence and examples of use have been confirmed by the WHOIS entries and screenshots from the Complainant’s website (Exhibit 1).

  

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 incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark "RTIC" in its entirety, simply adding the generic terms “outdoors” (which, together with the “RTIC” mark corresponds to the Complainant’s company name) and “coolers” (which, being one of the key goods produced and offered for sale by Complainant, clearly refers to the Complainant’s business) and the gTLDs “.sale” and, respectively, “.shop”. The addition of generic terms, especially those that directly refer to Complainant, does not differentiate the disputed domain names from Complainant and creates actual confusion. Furthermore, it is generally recognized that addition of a gTLD is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to Complainant's trademark.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant contends that it has granted neither license nor authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s “RTIC” trademarks, or apply for registration of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the Respondent is not known by the disputed domain. Previous panels found that a respondent was not commonly known by a domain name where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (FORUM September 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Furthermore, both domain names at issue resolve to websites mimicking that of Complainant, prominently displaying the Complainant’s mark and providing no hints or information on the seller making it clear for potential buyers that they are dealing with a reseller, rather than the Complainant. Such use does not meet the “Oki Data” test requirements to suggest that the Registrant might have right and legitimate interest in the domain name. Moreover, such use qualifies for bad faith, because by mimicking the Complainant’s website the Registrant benefits from the latter’s reputation and goodwill and disrupts the Complainant’s business, hence can not generate rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel thus finds that the Complainant has proven the second element of the Policy.


[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 Panel finds sufficient grounds to conclude that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domains in bad faith, because the relevant websites do not disclose the registrant's relationship with the trademark owner. Instead, as a result of mimicking the Complainant’s website and prominently displaying the Complainant’s mark, the Respondent’s websites falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the websites are the official site.


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. rticcoolers.shop
  2. rticoutdoors.sale

 

Natalia Stetsenko
Examiner
Dated: July 8, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page