URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Tanger Properties LP v. et al.
Claim Number: FA2108001961661
DOMAIN NAME
<tanger.ink>
PARTIES
Complainant: Tanger Properties LP of Greensboro, NC, United States of America | |
Complainant Representative: Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP
Stephen F Shaw of Greensboro, NC, United States of America
|
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Top Level Design, 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. | |
Hector Ariel Manoff, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: August 30, 2021 | |
Commencement: August 31, 2021 | |
Default Date: September 15, 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: Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc. (“Complainantâ€) provides retail outlets and shopping centers for apparel, accessories, and general consumer goods and owns TANGER-formative Marks associated with these services: TANGER FACTORY OUTLET CENTER (Reg. 1,885,190); TANGER OUTLET CENTER (Reg. 2,258,522); TANGER OUTLET CENTERS (Reg. 2,291,920); TANGER OUTLETS (Reg. 3,100,700); TANGER (Reg. 3,100,701); and TANGER VIRTUAL SHOPPER (Reg. 6,297,038). Complainant has used its trademark since 1995 and owns tangeroutlet.com, which it registered on April 15, 1996 and tanger.com, which is well before the Respondent's registration of the infringing domain on June 28, 2021. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The disputed domain name <tanger.ink> is identical to Complainant’s registered TANGER marks. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the generic top level domain “.inkâ€. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark registrations and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.1 by demonstrating that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration which is in current use. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its registered trademark TANGER. Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use the TANGER Marks or to apply for any Domain Name incorporating the TANGERS Mark. Respondent has not filed a response to this complaint and consequently no evidence was submitted to prove that he is commonly known as TANGER. Consequently, there is no evidence about rights or legitimate interest in TANGER and the disputed domain name, or evidence about a fair use either. The Examiner finds that the requirements set forth by URS 1.2.6.2 have been also met.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Since Complainant’s trademark is prior to the disputed domain name’s registration, Examiner concludes that the registration of the disputed domain name was made on bad faith. Regarding the use of the domain name, it refers to the promotion, advertising, and sale of products, by using counterfeit reproductions of Complainant’s TANGER OUTLETS logo design which are identical in font and stylization to the designation Complainant uses on its website and its outlet locations. Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain and that Complainant has complied with URS 1.2.6.3. 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:
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:
|
Hector Ariel Manoff Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page