URS FINAL DETERMINATION

 

DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P. v.

Claim Number: FA2005001895612

 

DOMAIN NAME

<lorax.online>

 

PARTIES

Complainant:  DR. SEUSS ENTERPRISES, L.P. of San Diego, California, United States of America.

Complainant Representative: DLA Piper LLP of Washington, District of Columbia, United States of America.

 

Respondent:  Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of Mateo, California, US.

Respondent Representative:  

 

 

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

Registries: DotOnline Inc.

Registrars: Dynadot, LLC

 

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.

 

Bart Van Besien, as Examiner.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted: May 11, 2020

Commencement: May 11, 2020   

Default Date: May 27, 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

 

The Complainant has shown that it is the owner of at least one US word trademark “Lorax” with registration number 2,072,896, registered on June 17th, 1997. The Complainant has also shown that it has made effective use of this trademark. The Complainant also claims to be the owner of “numerous trademark registrations and applications for the mark LORAX around the world”, but has not submitted evidence to support this claim.

 

The Complainant describes itself as a renowned global children’s entertainment brand. The Complainant has created, among other things, several well-known children’s books. One of the books the Complainant has created is named “The Lorax”. The Respondent has not submitted a response, and is therefore presumed to not refute the Complainant’ assertions. The Complainant asserts that it has made significant investments in advertising and promoting the “LORAX” trademark, and that it regularly licenses this trademark for use in connection with various goods and services. As proof of use, the Complainant has submitted a copy of the book “The Lorax”, as well as the film adaptation of this book with the same name. The Complainant has also provided a screenshot of its website www.seusville.com, showing a webpage containing information about the “Lorax” and the “Lorax Project”.

 

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 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 in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

        

          Determined: Finding for the Complainant

 

The Respondent did not file a response.

 

URS 1.2.6.1 (i) covers the domain name at issue in this case. The disputed domain name <lorax.online> is identical to the Complainant’s US word trademark “LORAX” with registration number 2,072,896, with the mere addition of the suffix ‘.online.

 

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

 

Determined: Finding for the Complainant

 

The Complainant asserts that he has not given the Respondent a license to use the “LORAX” trademark, nor permitted the Respondent to use the “LORAX” trademark in any other way, or to apply for a domain name incorporating this trademark.  The Complainant asserts that the Respondent cannot establish legitimate rights to the disputed domain name because of the fact that the Complainant owns several national and international registered “LORAX” trademarks.

 

The Examiner notes that the Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. The Respondent did not provide evidence of legitimate rights or interests in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence of any similar or identical trademarks owned by the Respondent. There is no indication of any authorization to use the Complainant’s trademark. There is no indication that the Respondent is otherwise related to the Complainant’s business. There is no evidence of the Respondent being commonly known as “LORAX” prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. For all of the above reasons, the Examiner determines that the Respondent does not have legitimate rights or interests to the domain name.

 

 

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

Determined: Finding for the Complainant.

 

The Complainant asserts that it is a well-known children’s entertainment brand, and that it has created, among other things, several well-known children’s books, including the book “The Lorax”. The Complainant further asserts that, by registering the disputed domain name <lorax.online>, the Respondent is attempting to disrupt the business of the Complainant, which it considers evidence of registration in bad faith.

 

The Respondent did not file a response.

 

The Examiner finds that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Indeed, it is likely that the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, which is evidence of bad faith use and registration, in accordance with the paragraph 1.2.6.3.d of the URS Procedure. The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s claims. In general terms, there are no circumstances known to the Examiner that refute the claim of bad faith registration or bad faith use.

 

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 name be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

 

<lorax.online>

 

 

 

 

 

Bart Van Besien, Examiner

Dated:  May 29, 2020

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page