Skechers U.S.A. Inc. II v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)
Claim Number: FA1805001786732




   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: Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) Domain Admin of Burlington, MA, US


   Registries: dot Science Limited
   Registrars: Alpnames Limited


   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.
   Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner


   Complainant Submitted: May 17, 2018
   Commencement: May 18, 2018
   Default Date: June 4, 2018
   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.


   Procedural Findings:  
      Multiple Complainants: The Complaint does not allege multiple Complainants.
      Multiple Respondents: The Complaint does not allege multiple Respondents.

   Findings of Fact: The Complainant claimed that the Complainant is a multi-billion-dollar global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry and their footwear products are sold around the world. The Complainant asserted that the trademark SKX is the house mark of the company that appears on Skechers’ branded products and the Complainant has been publicly traded on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol SKX since 1999. The Complainant claimed that the SKX trademark has been registered in numerous jurisdictions worldwide including in the U.S. The complainant claimed that the registered domain is identical to the SKX trademark which the Complainant owns rights in and currently resolves to a parking page where no information is displayed. The complainant claimed that the respondent has no legitimate right or interest on the domain name. Respondent provided no response to the complaint.


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 

It is clear that the Complainant has met its burden by clear and convincing evidence that the domain name is identical to the word mark SKX for which the Complainant holds valid national registration and that are in current use.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 

The Complainant did not authorize the Respondent for use of the SKX trademark. The Respondent did not submit any response or evidence to the contrary that it has legitimate interest for usage of the SKX trademark. Therefore, it is understood that the Respondent does not have any right or legitimate interest over the disputed domain name.

[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 

Even though the Complainant claimed that the domain name resolves to a parking page where no information is displayed, according to the screen shot provided by the Complainant, it seems that there is an active literary website managed by Andres Thomas Conteris and there is not any clear evidence which shows the Respondent’s commercial gain over the disputed domain. In this respect, the Examiner finds that the bad faith of the Respondent is not proven by the Claimant.


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. 


After reviewing the parties’ submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has NOT 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 returned to the control of Respondent:

  1. skx.science


Ahmet Akguloglu
Dated: June 7, 2018



Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page