RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2106001952409
Complainant: RTIC Outdoors, LLC of Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fish & Richardson P.C. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Dog Beach, LLC
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
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.
Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 23, 2021
Commencement: June 25, 2021
Default Date: July 12, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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 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 in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 5,155,866 RTIC, which was registered on March 7, 2017, covering “Insulated containers for beverages” in class 21, as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s RTIC Mark. It is well established that a domain name that wholly incorporates a trade mark may be confusingly similar to such trade mark for purposes of the URS Procedure despite the addition of additional generic terms, such as “outdoors” or “us”. In addition, it is also well established that the specific top-level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that only the Complainant is known by the RTIC Marks, that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to Complainant in any way, and that the Respondent is not authorized to use any of the RTIC Marks. It further states that the disputed domain name and the website leaves no doubt that the disputed domain name was created to scam the Complainant’s customers. The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website offering products which are marked with the Complainant's logo and which are offered with price discounts of up to 80%. The products most likely are not genuine. Even if the Respondent would offer genuine products, it still could rely on rights or legitimate interests in the present proceedings, as the Respondent’s website does not accurately and prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant. See Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001).
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith as the Respondent copies the Complainant’s trademarks, images from Complainant’s website, and content verbatim from Complainant’s website, and purports to sell the Complainant’s goods at a drastic discount.
Due to the facts that the RTIC Mark is highly distinctive and that the Respondent’s website available at the disputed domain name features the Complainant’s logo, the Examiner accepts that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s RTIC Mark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the RTIC Mark into the disputed domain name and by using the website at such domain name to offer products similar to the ones offered by the Complainant, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for commercial gain as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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.
<rticoutdoorsus.sale>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: July 12, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page