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:
  (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.

TThe registered domain names <couponsforfootlocker.xyz>, <footlockercouponcodes.xyz>, <footlockercoupons2015.xyz>, <footlockeronlinecoupons.xyz> and <footlockerprintablecoupon.xyz> (the "Contested Doman Names") fully incorporate the word mark FOOT LOCKER for which the Complainant holds valid national registrations and that is in current use. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus .xyz is of no consequence here. Furthermore, joining the highly distinctive element "FOOT LOCKER" with the generic terms which are typically used upon promotion/advertising of the respective goods labelled by the FOOT LOCKER name cannot preclude confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the Contested Domain Names are confusingly similar with the Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER mark under URS 1.2.6.1. (i).

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the FOOT LOCKER name and that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant’s FOOT LOCKER mark in a domain name or otherwise. The general impression conveyed by word combinations used to generate the Contested Domain Names gives the ground to conclude that the "FOOT LOCKER" name has not been used as a descriptive of generic term, which might support the fining of good faith. The Contested Domain Names resolve currently to click through landing pages. The use of a domain name to post parking and landing pages would not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests arising from a "bona fide offering of goods or services" or from "legitimate noncommercial or fair use" of 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.
  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.

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 FOOT LOCKER 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 FOOT LOCKER 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 FOOT LOCKER mark to divert users to the own website to increase the traffic to the domain name. Likelihood of confusion is not diminished by the possibility that the user will discover, upon arriving at Respondent’s website, that the website it reached is not the website it was seeking. Factoring that all the domain names include the FOOT LOCKER name and that the Respondent has been notified about trademark rights in the notice sent according to the TMCH procedure, 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. It is hard to imagine why the Contested Domain Names featuring the Complainant’s mark would have been chosen except for the trademark significance. This cannot be considered good-faith conduct when the Respondent has no evident rights to use the Complainant’s mark. The current case is the one where it is not possible to conceive of a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the domain name without the permission of the trademark owner. The logical conclusion is that the Respondent selected the Domain Names for their trademark value, with the intention of later exploiting them, either through commercial use or sale. Thus, the Examiner finds the Contested Domain Names misleading that supports finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d).

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

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:

couponsforfootlocker.xyz
footlockercouponcodes.xyz
footlockercoupons2015.xyz
footlockeronlinecoupons.xyz
footlockerprintablecoupon.xyz

	Complainant Submitted: July 27, 2016
	Commencement: July 27, 2016
	Default Date: August 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: Foot Locker Retail, Inc. of New York, NY, United States of America
	Complainant Representative: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Amy Gaven of New York, NY, United States of America

	Respondent: Privacy Protection Protection of Person of Moscow, II, RU

	Registries: XYZ.COM LLC
	Registrars: Registrar of Domain Names REG.RU, 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.
	Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner