URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
RTIC Outdoors, LLC v.
Claim Number: FA2109001964058
DOMAIN NAME
<rtic-cooler.shop>
PARTIES
Complainant: RTIC Outdoors, LLC of Houston, TX, 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. | |
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. | |
Alan L. Limbury, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: September 16, 2021 | |
Commencement: September 17, 2021 | |
Default Date: October 4, 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: [OptionalComment] |
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 incorporates the Complainant’s registered mark "RTIC" in its entirety, simply adding a hyphen and the generic term ““coolerâ€, which refers to goods sold by Complainant, and the gTLD “.shopâ€, which serves to reinforce the confusion between the domain name and the mark. Complainant has shown that its mark 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 states that it has granted neither license nor authorization to the Respondent to make any use of the Complainant’s “RTIC†trademark nor to apply for registration of the domain name. Respondent is not known by the domain name, which was registered on August 10, 2021, many years after Complainant first registered its RTIC mark, and which resolves to a website imitating the look and feel of Complainant's website, without any disclaimer of association with Complainant.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent was clearly aware of Complainant and its RTIC mark when registering the domain name and did so in bad faith in order to masquerade as Complainant for commercial gain, contrary to URS 1.2.6.3 (c) and (d). 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:
|
Alan L. Limbury Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page