URS FINAL DETERMINATION


Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. Kenneth Krauskopf et al.
Claim Number: FA1505001619936


DOMAIN NAME

<footlocker.website>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Foot Locker Retail, Inc. of New York, NY, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP of New York, NY, United States of America

   Respondent: computer magic consulting Ken Krauskopf of Chapin, SC, United States of America
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: DotWebsite Inc.
   Registrars: Go Daddy, 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.
   Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: May 18, 2015
   Commencement: May 19, 2015
   Response Date: May 27, 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").

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: Not applicable. Only one Complainant.
      Multiple Respondents: This determination relates to all Respondents and domain names identified by the Complaint.

   Findings of Fact: This dispute concerns the domain name FOOTLOCKER.WEBSITE (the “Disputed Domain name”). According to information obtained by the WHOIS registry (the “Registry”), the current registrant of the Disputed Domain Name is Kenneth Krauskopf (“Respondent”). Complainant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Foot Locker”) is a premium retailer of athletic footwear, apparel and related goods and services in the United States. Foot Locker owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the well-known and incontestable FOOT LOCKER marks (U.S. Reg. No. 3810824 and 1126857), registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other countries worldwide (the “Marks”). Complainant currently uses the Marks in commerce throughout the world.

  

URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 


Complainant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Foot Locker”) is a premium retailer of athletic footwear, apparel and related goods and services in the United States. Foot Locker owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the well-known and incontestable FOOT LOCKER marks (U.S. Reg. No. 3810824 and 1126857), registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other countries worldwide (the “Marks”).


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


The Disputed Domain Name < FOOTLOCKER.WEBSITE > is identical to Complainant's trademarks, consisting in whole of the words “FOOT LOCKER”. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the Marks and use of the Disputed Domain Name is likely to result in consumer confusion. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name because it is not a licensee of Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s Marks. Respondent provided no pleadings in support of any claim of right or legitimate interest in the disputed 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 


Respondent registered the Disputed Domain name on or about February 27, 2015 despite presumably receiving notification that the domain name matched a mark registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Respondent was required to have clicked on the Registrar notice Acknowledgment Claim when presented with the Trademark Claims Notice to complete registration of the name. The Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith in violation of URS 1.2.6.3 (c). Complainant’s Marks have a strong reputation and are widely known and well recognized in the United States and throughout the world. Respondent was presumably aware of Complainant’s rights in the Marks when registering the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith and primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting Complainant’s business.


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. 

Complainant Foot Locker Retail, Inc. (“Foot Locker”) is a premium retailer of athletic footwear, apparel and related goods and services in the United States. Foot Locker owns all rights, title, and interest in and to the well-known and incontestable FOOT LOCKER marks (U.S. Reg. No. 3810824 and 1126857), registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office and other countries worldwide (the “Marks”). Respondent failed to provide any material response to the allegations in the Complaint.


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. footlocker.website

 


Darryl C. Wilson
Examiner
Dated: May 31, 2015

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page