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. (“Complainant”) 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:
  (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 <tanger.ink> is identical to Complainant’s registered TANGER marks. It combines the mentioned Trademark with the addition of the generic top level domain “.ink”. 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.
  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 


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:


  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. tanger.ink

 

Hector Ariel Manoff
Examiner
Dated: September 17, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page