Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Nanjing shushangwangxin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd.
Claim Number: FA1606001681598
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: Nanjing shushangwangxin Electronic Technology Co., Ltd. of beijingshi, beijingshi, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc.
Registrars: Xin Net Technology Corporation
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.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas Ms., as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: June 29, 2016
Commencement: July 1, 2016
Default Date: July 18, 2016
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.
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 paragraph 22.214.171.124: The domain name at issue is composed with the Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark, together with the extension “.store”.
The extension “.store” refers to any store, where footwear and clothes such as cited in the US trademark SKECHERS No 1,851,977 are offered for sale.
The domain name is identical to the Complainant’s US trademark SKECHERS No 1,851,977, for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration and which is in current use.
URS paragraph 126.96.36.199: Respondent has no legitimate right or interest in the domain name.
Respondent is not licensed and has not been authorized to register or use the domain name. He is not commonly known under the domain name at issue.
URS paragraph 188.8.131.52: the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
Given the reputation of the Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark, Respondent could not reasonably ignore the Complainant’s trademark SKECHERS when registering the domain name at issue.
Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark had been submitted and verified by the Trademark Clearing House. The .store extension was launched very recently, what means that Respondent must have received a warning indicating that SKECHERS is a trademark belonging to the Complainant.
Despite this warning, the Respondent chose to continue the registration process.
The Panel finds that holding an inactive domain name can be, under certain circumstances, an indication of bad faith registration and use. Given the reputation of the Complainant’s SKECHERS trademark, the TMCH warning and the default of the Respondent, it is not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the Respondent that would not be illegitimate, such as by being a passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation, or an infringement of the Complainant’s rights under trademark law.
For these reasons, the Examiner finds that, Complainant made 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.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Ms. Marie Emmanuelle Haas, Examiner
Dated: July 18, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page