URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Shimano, Inc. v. Super Dynadot et al.
Claim Number: FA2207002005408
DOMAIN NAME
<shimano-fishingreels.xyz>
PARTIES
Complainant: Shimano, Inc. of Osaka, Japan | |
Complainant Representative: Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell, LLP of Los Angeles, CA, United States of America
|
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, CA, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: XYZ.COM LLC | |
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. | |
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 22, 2022 | |
Commencement: July 26, 2022 | |
Default Date: August 10, 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
Findings of Fact: Shimano, Inc. (Shimano) owns the federally registered and incontestable trademark SHIMANO (the “SHIMANO Markâ€). The SHIMANO Mark is the subject of numerous trademark registrations throughout the world, including, among many others, U.S. Trademark Reg. Nos. 989509, 1606477, 1663779, and 2658068. The goods in connection with which the SHIMANO Mark is registered include, among many other items, fishing rods, reels, and lures, and bicycle parts and other cycling related items. Shimano is currently using the SHIMANO mark in connection with these goods, which fact can be confirmed by reviewing Shimano’s official website at <shimano.com> and its various regional websites, which are listed at https://www.shimano.com/en/Global/index.html. The Respondent did not submit a Response. 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. |
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 domain name <shimanofishingreels.xyz> (the “Domain Nameâ€) incorporates the entirety of the SHIMANO Mark and combines the SHIMANO Mark with (1) “fishing†– a generic word identifying the context and utility of goods made and sold by Shimano and linked to the Shimano Mark, and (2) “reels†– a generic word identifying a good made and sold by Shimano and linked to the Shimano Mark. Web users encountering the Domain Name will mistakenly believe that they can purchase authentic Shimano-branded products at the Domain, which is not the case. (See 3M Company v. Kabir S Rawat, FA 1725079 (Forum May 9, 2017); Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exist where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other). Therefore, the Examiner believes that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademark and consequently the Examiner finds that requirement set forth under Paragraph 1.2.6.1. of the URS Procedure has been satisfied. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Complainant provided prima facie evidence that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and is not using the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Registrant is not commonly known by “shimanofishingreels.xyz.†Registrant is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the SHIMANO Mark in the Domain Name. The Respondent, in the absence of any response, has not shown any facts or elements to justify rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Based on the above, the Examiner finds that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain names as per the requirement set forth under Paragraph 1.2.6.2. of the URS Procedure.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The Registrant is using the Domain Name to operate a scam website (the “Websiteâ€) that sells purports to sell fishing equipment including reels and rods. Shimano also sells fishing equipment under the registered Shimano Mark, including reels and rods. The Website falsely associates the Shimano Mark with products that are not made or sold by Shimano, thereby luring consumers to send money and disclose personal information based on the false expectation that they will, in return, receive authentic, high-quality Shimano products. In this way, the Registrant is deliberately using counterfeits of the SHIMANO Mark to lure consumers to the Website and/or defraud them. Registrant is intentionally attempting to attract, for its own commercial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the SHIMANO Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Registrant’s Website or the products advertised thereon. These findings lead to the obvious conclusion that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the requirement set forth under Paragraph 1.2.6.3. of the URS Procedure has been satisfied by the Complainant. 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:
|
Antonina Pakharenko-Anderson Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page