Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. tong hope
Claim Number: FA1510001643840
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: tong hope of mu dan jiang, hl, International, China.
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.
Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Mr. Peter Müller, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: October 23, 2015
Commencement: October 27, 2015
Default Date: November 11, 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.
No multiple Complainants or Respondents and no multiple disputed domain names require dismissal.
Findings of Fact:
Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6. requires the 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 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.
The Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is inter alia registered owner of the US trademark registration no. 2,542,311 SKX, which was registered on February 26, 2002 covering “footwear and shoes” as well as documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates the Complainant’s SKX Mark. It is well established that the specific top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s SKX Mark and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The Complainant argues that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the famous SKX Mark, that the Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use the SKX Mark and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name, appropriating the SKX Mark in order to suggest to Internet users that there is a connection between Complainant’s products and the disputed domain name.
The Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In fact, the disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing “Sponsored Listings,” i.e. advertising links to third parties’ websites.
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant states that the Complainant’s SKX Mark is famous and that the Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s SKX house mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website.
The Complainant’s SKX Mark was validated by the Trademark Clearinghouse prior to the registration of the dispute disputed domain name. As a result, the Respondent must have been given a trademark claims notice of the Complainant’s rights and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. As to bad faith use, by fully incorporating the SKX Mark into the disputed domain name and by using the website at such domain name as a parking website providing links to third parties, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant's website to its own for the purpose of earning click-through revenues from Internet users searching for the Complainant's website as set out in URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.d.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
<skx.online>
Mr. Peter Müller, Examiner
Dated: November 16, 2015
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page