URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2201001980375


DOMAIN NAME

<littlegiant-us.top>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC Ryan Moss of Springville, UT, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Dorsey & Whitney LLP Mark Miller of Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America

   Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .TOP Registry
   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.
   Saravanan Dhandapani, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: January 13, 2022
   Commencement: January 17, 2022
   Default Date: February 1, 2022
   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


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: Multiple Complainants: No multiple Complainants are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <littlegiant-us.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.
      Multiple Respondents: Multiple Respondents: No multiple Respondents are involved in this proceeding. This Complaint and findings relate to the domain name <littlegiant-us.top>. No domain name is dismissed from this Complaint.

   Findings of Fact: The case of the Complainant is as follows: Founded in the 1970s, Complainant Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC is a leading international manufacturer of advanced ladder systems. Complainant incorporates state-of-the-art and proprietary technology into its ladder products, and through decades of exclusive use of the LITTLE GIANT brand, has become a household name associated with elite products and an invaluable business reputation. Complainant began using the LITTLE GIANT mark as early as 1980, and registered its domain name, <littlegiantladders.com>, on November 13, 1996, which it uses to actively promote and sell. Complainant’s goods and services, namely, ladder systems. Complainant’s website prominently shows the LITTLE GIANT trademark. Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations worldwide that consist of or contain the LITTLE GIANT mark, including in Australia, Canada, China, the European Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States, among many others. Complainant’s registrations in the United States have been registered since 2001 and are incontestable under applicable laws. As a result of this extensive international portfolio, Complainant enjoys immeasurable goodwill in the LITTLE GIANT mark around the world. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain, <littlegiant-us.top>, on November 4, 2021, over two decades after Complainant’s own domain name registration. The Disputed Domain is nearly identical to Complainant’s above cited domain and contains the entirety of the LITTLE GIANT mark. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has it been authorized by Complainant to act on its behalf, or to register or use any domain name incorporating the LITTLE GIANT mark. Through its use of a confusingly similar domain name, Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s trademarks. The Disputed Domain resolves to a website that is nearly identical in every way to the website housed at Complainant’s registered littlegiantladders.com domain. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain prominently displays the LITTLE GIANT mark in connection with the online sale of ladder systems and advertises for “Little Giant Ladders.” By using the Disputed Domain and the LITTLE GIANT mark, Respondent improperly holds itself out to be either Complainant or an authorized agent thereof, when neither is true. The Disputed Domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith based on the following grounds. First, Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain for the purposes of purportedly selling goods identical to those marketed and sold by Complainant under the LITTLE GIANT mark. Second, Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial use of the Disputed Domain because it is trading on Complainant’s goodwill in the LITTLE GIANT mark to mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing legitimate LITTLE GIANT-branded goods. Complainant has received complaints from many customers who purchased products from Respondent, believing it was Complainant, and then reached out to Complainant regarding the status of their order or seeking a refund, only to learn that Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Therefore, Respondent is exploiting the reputation and goodwill of the LITTLE GIANT mark to intentionally create consumer confusion. Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain in bad faith.

  

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 Complainant has proved by documentary evidence that they are the registered owner of trademark “Littlegiant” under various classifications. As noted, the disputed domain name <littlegiant-us.top> composes “Littlegiant”; “us” and “.top”. Thus, the word “Littlegiant” in disputed domain name is identical to Complainant’s registered trademark “LITTLE GIANT”. The “us” is a suffix to the registered trademark of the Complainant i.e., “Littlegiant” which does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trade mark. The “.top” in disputed domain name is a generic code top-level domain name (gTLD) suffix. The said suffix and gTLD are non-distinctive and are incapable of differentiating the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s registered trademark. Based on the “LITTLE GIANT” being a registered trademark of the Complainant, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.1(i) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Complainant owns trademark “LITTLE GIANT” under various classifications. The Complainant’s adoption and first use of the registered trademark is for decades together. In such case, the burden lies on the Respondent to prove that he/she has legitimate rights and/or interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is in default and has not filed any response. Although, the Complainant is not entitled to relief simply by default of the Respondent to submit a Response, the Examiner can however and does draw evidentiary inferences from the failure of the Respondent to respond. In view of the above, the Complainant has established a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interest. Based on the record, the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Hence, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.2 covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.


[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 


The Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any manner and never authorized the Respondent to register or use any domain name incorporating “Littlegiant”. The Respondent has not responded in spite of the notice of complaint and notice of default under this URS determination process. It is well established that the registration and use of the disputed domain name must involve malafides where the registration and use of it was continues to be made in full knowledge of the Complainant’s prior rights in the “LITTLE GIANT” registered trademark and in circumstances where the registrant did not seek permission from the Complainant, as the owner of trademark, for such registration and use. Thus, the Panel Examiner comes to irresistible determination that (i) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s “LITTLE GIANT” trademark; (ii) the Respondent’s name does not correspond to the disputed domain name; (iii) the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its trademark when it registered the disputed the domain name; (iv) there is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s mark. The contentions of the Complainant that the Disputed Domain resolves to a website that is nearly identical in every way to the website housed at Complainant’s registered littlegiantladders.com domain; that the Disputed Domain prominently displays the LITTLE GIANT mark in connection with the online sale of ladder systems and advertises for “Little Giant Ladders”; and Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain for the purposes of purportedly selling goods identical to those marketed and sold by Complainant under the LITTLE GIANT mark were not disputed which clearly establishes malafide intention of the Respondent. Hence, it is lawful to conclude that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Thus, the Examiner determines that URS 1.2.6.3 (a) and (d) covers the domain name at issue in this Complaint and the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.


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. littlegiant-us.top

 

Saravanan Dhandapani
Examiner
Dated: February 2, 2022

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page