URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION


Honeywell Safety Products USA, Inc. v. Zhi Kun Yang et al.
Claim Number: FA1912001874413


DOMAIN NAME

<muckboot.club>
 <muckbootsale.club>
 <muckbootsale.top>
 <muckbootsshops.top>
 <muckclearance.top>
 <muckhotsales.top>
 <muckonline.site>
 <muckoutlet.top>
 <muckoutlets.top>
 <muckshop.top>
 <muckstore.xyz>
 <muckvipsale.club>


PARTIES


   Complainant: Honeywell Safety Products USA, Inc. of SMITHFIELD, RI, United States of America
  
Complainant Representative: Leason Ellis LLP Peter Busch of White Plains, NY, United States of America

   Respondent: Yang Zhi Kun / Zhi Kun Yang Zhi Kun Yang of Guang Yuan Shi, Si Chuan, II, CN
  

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS


   Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC,.TOP Registry,DotSite Inc.,XYZ.COM LLC
   Registrars: Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.,NameSilo,NameSilo, LLC,Chengdu west dimension digital

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.
   Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY


   Complainant Submitted: December 9, 2019
   Commencement: December 19, 2019
   Default Date: January 3, 2020
   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: Complainant owns U.S. trademark registrations for the marks MUCK, THE ORIGINAL MUCK BOOT COMPANY, and MUCK BOOT CO. and DESIGN, as used on waterproof footwear and outwear. Each of the 12 disputed domain names directs to pages displaying the ORIGINAL MUCK BOOT COMPANY logo and purport to offer authentic Original Muck Boots for sale. Complainant has received complaints from customers who have visited the disputed sites to purchase Muck Boots, and some customers have had their credit card numbers stolen upon attempting to purchase goods from the sites. The disputed domain names were registered in September 2019 or thereafter, long after Complainant's first use and registration of its marks.

  

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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Each of the disputed domain names is either identical or confusingly similar to the marks MUCK or MUCK BOOT CO. and DESIGN. Each domain name incorporates in full either the mark MUCK ( see, e.g., muckshop.top, muckoutlet.top, muckstore.xyz) or the dominant portion of the mark MUCK BOOT CO. and DESIGN (see, e.g., muckboot.club, muckbootsale.club), adding only non-distinctive terms and top-level domains. The evidence also establishes that Complainant holds valid national registrations for its marks and that the marks are currently in use.


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

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to any of the disputed domain names. As noted above, each of the disputed domain names purportedly is being used as part of a fraudulent scheme to deceive Internet users. This is not a legitimate use of the domains, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Juno Online Servs., Inc. v. Nelson, FA 241972 (Forum Mar. 29, 2004). There also is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the any of the disputed domain names.


[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant 


Each of the disputed domain names was registered and is being used in bad faith. As noted above, each of the domain names is either identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's marks and resolve to sites that purport to offer authentic Original Muck Boots for sale. Thus, by using each of the disputed domain names, Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the sites. The evidence also establishes that Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting Complainant's business.


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:


  1. The Complaint was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods. 

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:

  1. muckboot.club
  2. muckbootsale.club
  3. muckbootsale.top
  4. muckbootsshops.top
  5. muckclearance.top
  6. muckhotsales.top
  7. muckonline.site
  8. muckoutlet.top
  9. muckoutlets.top
  10. muckshop.top
  11. muckstore.xyz
  12. muckvipsale.club

 

Jeffrey M. Samuels
Examiner
Dated: January 6, 2020

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page