Foot Locker Retail, Inc. v. George Billis
Claim Number: FA1606001680987
Complainant: Foot Locker Retail, Inc. of New York, New York, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent: George Billis of New York, New York, United States of America.
Respondent Representative: /
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: The City of New York by and through the New York City Department of Information Technology & Telecommunications
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: June 24, 2016
Commencement: June 24, 2016
Default Date: July 11, 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.
Findings of fact: Complainant claims to be the owner of several trademarks “Foot Locker” (in the US and other countries). Complainant has provided evidence of several of these trademarks (with registration dates long before the registration of the disputed domain name). Complainant also claims that it effectively uses these trademarks and that these trademarks (and related goods/services) are well-known throughout the world. Complainant claims that the trademark “Foot Locker” was registered with the TMCH (Trademark Clearinghouse).
These claims are not contested by the Respondent.
The Respondent did not file a response.
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 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 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The domain name consists of the Complainant’s trademark paired with the generic top level domain “.nyc”.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
Determined: Finding for Complainant
Respondent did not file a response and 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 “Foot Locker” or “footlocker” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant claims that (1) the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way; (2) the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use any domain name incorporating the marks of the Complainant; and (3) the Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and is not otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s marks. These claims are not contested by the Respondent.
[URS 1.2.6.3] 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
There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent is making a legitimate or fair use of the domain name. The Examiner accepts that the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s well-known trademarks at the moment of registration of the domain name.
There are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.
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.
Bart Van Besien, Examiner
Dated: July 11, 2016
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page