Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Dijksman Holding et al.

Claim Number: FA1509001637468






Complainant: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II of Manhattan Beach, California, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP of Los Angeles, California, United States of America.


Respondent: Dijksman Holding of The Hague, International, Netherlands.


Dijksman Holding of The Hague, International, NL.



Registries: DotOnline Inc.

Registrars: GoDaddy.com, 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: September 14, 2015

Commencement: September 15, 2015   

Default Decision Date: October 2, 2015 

Response Date: October 8, 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.




Complainant is the owner of various trademarks containing or comprising the word “skechers” and has effectively used these in connection with the sale of footwear.  Complainant has provided evidence regarding the US trademark “Skechers” (Reg. No. 1,851,977).


The domain name is currently linked to an inactive website (parked domain).


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] 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.


       Determined: Finding for Complainant


URS (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark paired with the generic toplevel domain “.online”.


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


Determined: Finding for Complainant


Respondent did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the 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 trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “Skechers” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The domain name is currently parked (no bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate or noncommercial or fair use).


[URS] The domain name was 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


URS (d) is applicable here. The Complainant has actively used its trademark and registered the trademark with the Clearinghouse before the Respondent’s registration of the domain name, so the Respondent should have received notice of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration.


There is no evidence of use by the Respondent (or demonstrable preparations to use) of the domain name or a name corresponding to it in connection with a bona fide offering of goods (the domain name is a parked domain name). There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that the Registrant is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name.


Respondent’s only reply to the claim of registration/use in bad faith is: “No way!”  (without any arguments or explanation) (see Response of October 8, 2015).


In its Response of October 8, 2015, the Respondent requests a “reimbursement of costs” to the amount of 1.400 euros. Only if payment of 1.400 euros is made to the bank account of the Respondent is the Respondent ready to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. The Examiner considers that the price of 1.400 euros is disproportional to the costs directly related to registering and/or maintaining the domain name. The Respondent does not document any costs related to the domain name. The Examiner finds that the Respondent’s request confirms the Claimant’s claim of bad faith registration/use of the domain name.


There are no other circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.





The Examiner finds that the Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.




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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:






Bart Van Besien, Examiner

Dated:  October 08, 2015




Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page