URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. Super Privacy Service LLC

Claim Number: FA2108001961160

 

DOMAIN NAME

<rticoutdoor.store>

 

PARTIES

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.

Respondent Representative:  None appearing

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registry:  DotStore Inc.

Registrar:  Dynadot, 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: August 25, 2021

Commencement: August 26, 2021   

Default Date: September 10, 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

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.

 

The RTIC mark was registered to RTIC IP, LLC with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Registration No. 5,155,866) on March 7, 2017 (USPTO Registration Certificate submitted with Complaint) and was subsequently assigned to Complainant by entity merger (Certificate of Merger issued by Texas Secretary of State 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, the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

 

The registrar lists the Registrant as “Contact Privacy Service LTD / c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.”  None 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 RTIC mark.  Further, the URS Site Screenshots submitted with the Complaint are screenshots of the web site resolving from the domain name.  The site purports to offer Complainant’s goods at retail, at deep discounts, and mimics the style and appearance of Complainant’s web site.  This use does not confer any right or legitimate interest upon the Respondent.  The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. 

 

The evidence further demonstrates that Registrant is using the domain name 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.

 

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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of its registration.

 

rticoutdoor.store

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Examiner

Dated:  September 10, 2021