Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2201001981433
Complainant: Little Giant Ladder Systems, LLC of Springville, Utah, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Mark Miller, Dorsey & Whitney LLP of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
Respondent Representative: not applicable
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .TOP Registry
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
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.
Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: January 21, 2022
Commencement: January 25, 2022
Default Date: February 9, 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").
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The Complainant submitted evidence that it is the registered owner of various U.S. trademarks. Following trademarks are relevant for the present case (hereafter: the “Little Giant Trademark(s)”):
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires the 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 is 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.
URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The Complainant is the registered owner of the Little Giant Trademark(s). The Complainant demonstrated evidence of use through screenshots of the website https://www.littlegiantladders.com.
The disputed domain name < littlegiant-deal.top > is identical to the Little Giant Trademark(s) with the addition of the word “-deal” and the suffix “.top”. The addition of the generic terms “deal” and the suffix “.top” does not eliminate likelihood or confusion with the Little Giant Trademark(s).
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name since the Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant, nor has it been authorized to act on its behalf, or to register or use any domain name incorporating the Little Giant Trademark(s). Moreover, the Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services, given that it is used to sell identical goods as the Complainant, under the same brand as the Complainant, to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the Respondent, and intentionally create consumer confusion.
The Respondent did not file a response and therefore did not provide any evidence of any legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s Little Giant Trademark(s). There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. Although the disputed domain name is currently in use, this does not suffice to determine that the Respondent has a legitimate right or interest to the domain name. On the contrary, the Complainant has provided screenshots of the website available via the disputed domain name, which show that the disputed domain name is being used for similar goods for which (most of) the Little Giants Trademark(s) are registered (e.g. metal and non-metal ladders). The Examiner concludes that the Complainant has at the very least made a prima facie case, that the Respondent lacks legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
URS [1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered long after the Complainant had registered its first Little Giant Trademark. The Complainant states that the website available via the disputed domain name is nearly identical in every way to the website of the Complainant. Moreover, the Complainant submitted evidence that the website available via the disputed domain name prominently displays the Little Giant Trademark(s) in connection with the online sale of ladder systems and advertises for “Little Giant Ladders”. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is used in bad faith because: (1) it is used to sell goods identical to those marketed and sold by the Complainant under the Little Giant Trademark(s), and (2) the Respondent is not making a legitimate, noncommercial use but trading on the goodwill of the Complainant to mislead consumers into believing they are purchasing legitimate Little Giant-branded goods.
The Respondent did not file a response.
The Examinator is of the opinion that the facts and evidence provided by the Complainant clearly show that the Respondent attempted to imitate the Complainant and to profit from its reputation. It is highly unlikely that the Respondent would not have been aware of the unlawful character of the disputed domain name. Furthermore, the disputed domain name is being used to sell metal and non-metal ladders to customers, goods covered by the classes for which the Little Giant Trademark(s) are registered. Therefore, the Examiner concludes that the disputed domain name is registered to mislead customers into believing they are purchasing Little Giant products, and the Respondent thus registered and uses the domain name (1) for the purpose of disrupting the business of the Complainant, in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.3.c of the URS Procedure, and (2) for the purpose of intentionally attracting, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration, in accordance with paragraph 1.2.6.3.d of the URS Procedure.
Determined: Finding for the Complainant
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: February 11, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page