URS FINAL DETERMINATION
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. DomainCostClub.com / DCC Private Registrations et al.
Claim Number: FA1907001853884
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: DomainCostClub.com Adrian Ramirez of Carlsbad, CA, United States of America | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: dot Science Limited | |
Registrars: Global Domains International, Inc. DBA DomainCostClub.com |
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. | |
Kendall C. Reed, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 25, 2019 | |
Commencement: July 26, 2019 | |
Response Date: August 6, 2019 | |
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: Respondent�s response consists of a statement that it is a type of privacy service, and some other person or entity is the registrant. The examiner notes that whereas there is nothing inherently wrong with the use of a privacy service, the Registrant is as indicated in the WhoIs record for purposes of the URS Procedure, and notice thereto of this URS proceeding is sufficient. Complainant has demonstrated that it is the owner of the USPTO trademark registration for SKX (the �Complainant�s Mark�) and that this mark is currently used in commerce. The Complainant has also demonstrated that the Dispute Domain Name resolves to an Internet parking page. |
URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, 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 Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complaint�s Mark. The Disputed Domain Name <skx.science> contains the same three letters in the same order as the Complainant�s Mark, SKX. The addition of the Top-Level Domain �.science� is a difference that does not create a meaningful distinction for purposes of the URS. As such, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant�s Mark. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent does not have legitimate right or interest to the Disputed Domain Name. Complaint establishes that it has not authorized Respondent to use the Complainant�s Mark in any way or for any purpose. Complainant has also established that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an Internet parking page, which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a fair use for purposes of the URS
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Respondent The Complainant has failed to establish this element of the URS Procedure by clear and convincing evidence. The Complainant�s Mark consist of three letters, �SKX.� This combination of letters is not so distinctive and/or well known that it would be implausible to conclude Respondent did not intentionally copy Complainant�s Mark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Said the other way around, under the �clear and convincing� standard the examiner cannot dismiss the possibility that Respondent developed this combination of letters independently and registered the Disputed Domain Name innocently for purpose of the URS. 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:
|
Kendall C. Reed
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page