URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. See PrivacyGuardian.org
Claim Number: FA2111001973862


DOMAIN NAME

<rticoutdoors.club>
 <rtic-usa.club>


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: Privacy Guardian / See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, AZ, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC
   Registrars: NameSilo, LLC,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.
   Dawn Osborne, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: November 18, 2021
   Commencement: November 19, 2021
   Default Date: December 6, 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: The Complainant is the owner of the RTIC mark, registered, inter alia, in the USA for outdoor equipment with first use recorded as 2015. The Domain Names registered in 2021 have been used for a site selling competing items purporting to be an official site of the Complainant using the Complainant’s mark and logo as a masthead.

  

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 Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade mark including it in its entirety and adding only generic terms and/or a hyphen and the gTLD .club.


[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Names and is not authorised by the Complainant. Using a domain name to purport to be an official site of a complainant is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate non commercial or fair use.


[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.


Using a domain name to purport to be an official site of a complainant using the complainant’s mark and logo as a masthead is registration and use in bad faith diverting and confusing Internet users for commercial gain and disrupting a complainant’s business.


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. rticoutdoors.club
  2. rtic-usa.club

 

Dawn Osborne
Examiner
Dated: December 6, 2021

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page