URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Tian Li
Claim Number: FA1607001684441
DOMAIN NAME
<skx.win>
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: Tian Li Tian Li of Eugene, OR, US | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: First Registry 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. | |
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 20, 2016 | |
Commencement: July 22, 2016 | |
Default Date: August 8, 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"). |
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
Findings of Fact: Findings of Fact: Under URS 9.1. the evidences will be the materials submitted with the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire records used by the Examiner to make a Determination. URS 8.2. reads that the burden of proof shall be clear an convincing evidences. Under URS 8.6. if the Examiner finds that all three standards provided for by URS 8.1. are satisfied by clear and convincing evidences and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a Determination in favour of the Complainant. Under URS 6.1. if at the expiration of the 14 Calendar Day Response period (or extended period if granted), the Registrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default. Further URS 6.3. reads that all Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim. The Complainant holds the valid national trademark registration for the SKX house mark of the Complainant (U.S. reg. no. 2542311) registered on 02/26/2002), which is also registered in the trademark clearinghouse (TMCH). The Complainant contemplates that the Respondent registered the domain name, appropriating Skechers' famous SKX trademark in order to suggest to Internet users that there is a connection between Skechers' products and the Respondent's domain. Yet the more, the Respondent has had the constructive knowledge of the trademark rights, but proceeded to registration of the conflicting domain name that may be regarded as one of the indicia of bad faith. |
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 The registered domain name <skx.win> fully incorporates the word mark SKX for which the Complainant holds a valid national registration and that is in current use (verified by TMCH). In addition, it is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus .win is of no consequence here. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the domain name <skx.win> is identical to the Complainant’s SKX mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i). [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the SKX name and he has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s SKX mark in a domain name or otherwise. The records of the case do not provide any evidence supporting that the domain name is either generic or descriptive, or that there are any other plausible grounds supporting that the Respondent might have any legitimate right to use the contested domain name. Passive holding or non-use of a domain name is evidence of a lack of legitimate rights in the domain name. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The bad faith exists where the respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. By visiting the site, customers will most likely expect to reach the SKX website or the website operated by someone who has any ties with or relation to the Complainant which is strongly present onto the international market and is known worldwide. The Respondent who has never been granted the right to use the SKX mark and who does not have any affiliation ties with the Complainant is using the confusion in the minds of consumers over the use of the well-known SKX mark to divert users to the own website to increase the traffic to the domain name. It should be noted that the contested domain name is located in the .win gTLD created for the gaming resources for which business lead generation is very important. The records of the case do not provide any evidence whatsoever of any actual or contemplated good faith use by him of the domain name. Due to registration of the Complainant’s trademark in TMCH Respondent must have known of Complainant's famous trademark at the time of the registration of the domain name and must also have known that the registration of the domain names was in bad faith. Thus, the Examiner finds the domain name <skx.win> misleading that supports finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d). 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 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 SUSPENDED for
the duration of the registration:
|
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page