URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

 

Wolverine Outdoors, Inc. v. See PrivacyGuardian.org

Claim Number: FA1908001857641

 

DOMAIN NAME

<merrellves.online>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  Wolverine Outdoors, Inc. of Rockford, Michigan, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: Warner Norcross + Judd LLP of Grand Rapids, Michigan, United States of America.

 

Respondent:  See PrivacyGuardian.org of Phoenix, Arizona, US.

Respondent Representative:

 

REGISTRAR

Registrar:  CentralNicGroup PLC

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complaint submitted: August 16, 2019

Commencement: August 16, 2019   

Default Date: September 3, 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

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.

 

·         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 currently in effect and that was in effect at the tie the URS Complaint was filed; and

·         Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name; and

·         the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

The Examiner finds as follows:

 

The MERRILL mark was registered to Complainant with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) (Registration No. 3,062,605) on February 26, 2006 (TSDR Report submitted with Complaint).  Complainant is currently using that mark in connection with its business operations (Proof of Use screenshot submitted with Complaint).  Complainant thus holds a valid national registration of its mark, and the mark is in current use.  Further, the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark.

 

The registrar lists the Registrant as “Privacy guardian / See PrivacyGuardian.org.”  Neither of these names bears any resemblance to the domain name, and there is no evidence that the Registrant has been commonly known by the domain name.  The URS Site Screenshot submitted with the Complaint is a screenshot of the web site resolving from the domain name.  It features Complainant’s MERRILL mark at the top, printed in the same font and color as appears on the Complainant’s web site shown on the Proof of Use sheet referred to above, and purports to offer outdoor footware for sale.  Registrant is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate or fair use, as the resolving web site impersonates Complainant and purports to sell products in competition with those offered by Complainant.  The Examiner finds that the Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

 

Based upon the evidence discussed immediately above, the Registrant is using the domain name to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its web site.  Further, the fact that the Registrant incorporated Complainant’s mark verbatim into the domain name and purports to offer the same type of goods sold by Complainant demonstrates that it knew of Complainant and its rights in that mark when it registered the domain name.  For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner finds that the Registrant is using the domain name in bad faith.

 

DETERMINATION

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.

 

merrellves.online

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Examiner

Dated:  September 4, 2019

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page