Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. WILLIAMS joel
Claim Number: FA1503001609616




   Complainant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II of Manhattan Beach, CA, United States of America
Complainant Representative: Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP Marshall A Lerner of Los Angeles, CA, United States of America

   Respondent: WILLIAMS joel of CENTREVILLE, --, United States


   Registries: dot Science Limited
   Registrars: Nameshield SAS


   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.
   Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: March 13, 2015
   Commencement: March 16, 2015
   Default Date: March 31, 2015
   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.


   Findings of Fact: The Complainant did not submit any arguments to support the grounds of the Claim. He simply mentioned the trademark on which the case is based and submitted a copy of the U.S. Registration thereof, although without evidence of the fact that it was renewed upon expiration in 2012. Proof of use of the trademark was submitted.


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] 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 

Even though the copy of the U.S. Trademark Registration submitted to support the case does not show if it was renewed upon expiration in 2012, a quick review performed by the Examiner at the website of the USPTO allowed establishing that the trademark registration was indeed renewed, and is in force until 2022. This being the case, the Examiner considers tht the Complainant has met his burden in this respect.

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

Determined: Finding for Respondent 

The Complainant did not submit one single argument to demonstrate why he considers that the Registrant does not have legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Even though the URS provides an expedite solution to issues involving the registration of domain names which include trademarks owned by third parties, it is a duty of the Complainant to explain why the domain being challenged violates the prior trademark rights. In light of this, the Complaint does not meet the requirement of URS

[URS] 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 Respondent 

Again, there is a total absense of arguments from the Complainant as to why the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is not enough at all to transcribe in a Complaint the provisions of the URS Procedure, since not necessarily all the circumstances listed are met with the registration of a given domain name. This is a task that the Complainant shall accomplish, not the Examiner. For this reason, the Complaint does not meet URS Requirement


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. 

The complaint at hand cannot be held to be abusive. However, the Complainant failed to meet its burden, and therefore the Examiner is not convinced of the bad faith of the respondent, in spite of the fact that the Respondent also failed to submit a response to the Complaint.


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be returned to the control of the Respondent.

  1. skx.science


Luz Helena Villamil Jimenez
Dated: April 6, 2015



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page