Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Simone Reinhardt / Fanny Holm / Arvidsson Henrik / Ekstrom Yaomine
Claim Number: FA2206001999986
Complainant is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II (“Complainant”), represented by Marshall A Lerner of Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Simone Reinhardt / Fanny Holm / Arvidsson Henrik / Ekstrom Yaomine (“Respondent”), Malaysia.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <boutiqueskechers.com>, <cheapskechersireland.com>, <franceskechers.com>, <skechers-australia.com>, <skechersaustralia.top>, <skechersbelgique.org>, <skechers-hungary.org>, <skechersitaliashop.com>, <skechersnzoutlet.com>, <skechersoutletbudapest.com>, <skechersoutletindia.com>, <skechersschuheberlin.com>, <skechersshoesaustria.com>, <skechersshopschweiz.com>, <skechersstorescanada.com>, <skecherswinkelamsterdam.com>, and <ukskechersshoes.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), registered with ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc, NameSilo, LLC, Gransy, s.r.o., and Key-Systems GmbH.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on June 10, 2022; the Forum received payment on June 10, 2022.
Between June 12, 2022 and June 15, 2022, ALIBABA.COM SINGAPORE E-COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED, Web Commerce Communications Limited dba WebNic.cc, NameSilo, LLC, Gransy, s.r.o., and Key-Systems GmbH all confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <boutiqueskechers.com>, <cheapskechersireland.com>, <franceskechers.com>, <skechers-australia.com>, <skechersaustralia.top>, <skechersbelgique.org>, <skechers-hungary.org>, <skechersitaliashop.com>, <skechersnzoutlet.com>, <skechersoutletbudapest.com>, <skechersoutletindia.com>, <skechersschuheberlin.com>, <skechersshoesaustria.com>, <skechersshopschweiz.com>, <skechersstorescanada.com>, <skecherswinkelamsterdam.com>, and <ukskechersshoes.com> domain names are registered with them and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Each of the Registrars has verified that Respondent is bound by their respective registration agreements and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On June 16, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 6, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@boutiqueskechers.com, postmaster@cheapskechersireland.com, postmaster@franceskechers.com, postmaster@skechers-australia.com, postmaster@skechersaustralia.top, postmaster@skechersbelgique.org, postmaster@skechers-hungary.org, postmaster@skechersitaliashop.com, postmaster@skechersnzoutlet.com, postmaster@skechersoutletbudapest.com, postmaster@skechersoutletindia.com, postmaster@skechersschuheberlin.com, postmaster@skechersshoesaustria.com, postmaster@skechersshopschweiz.com, postmaster@skechersstorescanada.com, postmaster@skecherswinkelamsterdam.com, postmaster@ukskechersshoes.com. Also on June 16, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On July 12, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Complainants
In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that “[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint.” The Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines “The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration” as a “single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint.”
Previous panels have interpreted the Forum’s Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int’l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:
It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.
In Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where there was a license between the parties regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark.
The Panel has reviewed the Complaint and is satisfied that that Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.. This is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants such that they should be treated as a single entity in this proceeding referred to in the singular, as “Complainant”.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.”
Complainant contends that the registrants for the Domain Names are related because the Domain Names redirect or have redirected to what are essentially identical websites (the “Respondent’s Website”). Each of the websites uses the same design and layout, each of them purports to offer Complainant’s footwear products, each of them reproduces the Complainant’s logo using the same stylization found on the Complainant’s website, each of them reproduce many similar photos and have copyright statements in the same format. The only significant differences are the language of the website, certain photos on the landing page and pricing. This evidence, in the Panel’s opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that five unconnected entities would register 17 very similar domain names and point them to essentially identical websites.
In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as “Respondent” for this Decision.
A. Complainant
Complainant is a global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry. Complainant has rights in the SKECHERS mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered Aug. 30, 1994). Respondent’s <<boutiqueskechers.com>, <cheapskechersireland.com>, <franceskechers.com>, <skechers-australia.com>, <skechersaustralia.top>, <skechersbelgique.org>, <skechers-hungary.org>, <skechersitaliashop.com>, <skechersnzoutlet.com>, <skechersoutletbudapest.com>, <skechersoutletindia.com>, <skechersschuheberlin.com>, <skechersshoesaustria.com>, <skechersshopschweiz.com>, <skechersstorescanada.com>, <skecherswinkelamsterdam.com>, and <ukskechersshoes.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they each include the mark in its entirety, adding generic terms in various languages, country codes (such as “nz” for New Zealand) and/or geographic designations along with a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names because Complainant did not authorize or license Respondent to use the SKECHERS mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant while offering to sell counterfeit products.
Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant and offer counterfeit prodcuts for sale. Additionally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the SKECHERS mark at the time of registration, based on the content of the Respondent’s Website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the SKECHERS mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s SKECHERS mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Complainant has rights in the SKECHERS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered August 30, 1994). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the SKECHERS mark as they each incorporate the entire SKECHERS mark while adding generic terms in various languages (such as “schuhe” [a German word for shoe]), country codes (such as “uk”, being the country code for the United Kingdom), and/or geographic designations along with a gTLD. The addition of generic, descriptive, or geographic terms and a gTLD to a mark is insufficient to distinguish a domain name from the mark it incorporates per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also MTD Products Inc v. J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SKECHERS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS information of record lists “Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Limited / Simone Reinhardt / Fanny Holm / Arvidsson Henrik / Ekstrom Yaomine” as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Each of the Domain Names resolves or has resolved to the Respondent’s Website which, through the reproduction of the SKECHERS Mark, Complainant’s logo and reference to (and photos of) Complainant’s products, passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of selling unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods, in direct competition with Complainant’s merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant’s goods or goods or services that directly compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum February 16, 2018) (“The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests.”). See also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant’s mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, between January 2021 and April 2022, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s SKECHERS mark since the Respondent’s Website passes itself off as an official website of the Complainant and as such reproduces material from Complainant and makes repeated references to Complainant and its products. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 17 domain names that contain the SKECHERS mark and use them to redirect visitors to websites selling goods in direct competition with the Complainant under the SKECHERS mark other than to take advantage of Complainant’s reputation in the SKECHERS mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s SKECHERS mark for commercial gain by using each of the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to a website that, through the use of the SKECHERS mark and logo, mimics Complainant’s websites and offers unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products in direct competition with the Complainant’s products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”). See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum December 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <boutiqueskechers.com>, <cheapskechersireland.com>, <franceskechers.com>, <skechers-australia.com>, <skechersaustralia.top>, <skechersbelgique.org>, <skechers-hungary.org>, <skechersitaliashop.com>, <skechersnzoutlet.com>, <skechersoutletbudapest.com>, <skechersoutletindia.com>, <skechersschuheberlin.com>, <skechersshoesaustria.com>, <skechersshopschweiz.com>, <skechersstorescanada.com>, <skecherswinkelamsterdam.com>, and <ukskechersshoes.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: July 13, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page