URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Skechers U.S.A. Inc. II v. Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org)
Claim Number: FA1805001786732
DOMAIN NAME
<skx.science>
PARTIES
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 and REGISTRARS
Registries: dot Science Limited | |
Registrars: Alpnames Limited |
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. | |
Ahmet Akguloglu, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
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"). |
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: 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 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar
to a word mark: 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 1.2.6.2] 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 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
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. 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:
DETERMINATION
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:
|
Ahmet Akguloglu Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page