RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. REDACTED PRIVACY et al.
Claim Number: FA2111001974128
Complainant: RTIC Outdoors, LLC, of Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Complainant Representative: Fish & Richardson P.C., of Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Respondent: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot of San Mateo, California, US.
Respondent Representative: Not Applicable
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: .CLUB DOMAINS, LLC; DotOnline Inc.; DotStore Inc.; GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Jeffrey M. Samuels, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 19, 2021
Commencement: November 24, 2021
Default Date: December 9, 2021
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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant RTIC Outdoors, LLC is a leading source of premium outdoor products, including hard coolers, soft coolers, drinkware, bags, and camping products. Since 2016, Complainant has used the marks RTIC, RTIC logo, and R Logo on its goods. Complainant owns over 90 registrations worldwide for the RTIC marks.
Complainant asserts that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to its RTIC mark insofar as they wholly incorporate the RTIC mark, adding only descriptive terms that do not distinguish the domains from the RTIC mark because Complainant offers premium coolers, operates a store for its goods on the internet, and has built a loyal community of customers who share a passion for the outdoors.
Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It notes that Respondent is not related to Complainant and is not authorized to use the RTIC mark.
Finally, Complainant argues that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Complainant indicates that the domain names were registered between September and November 2021, over five years after Complainant started use of the RTIC mark and in response to Complainant’s enforcement efforts. Complainant further notes that the domain names resolve to websites that copy the RTIC mark, copy images from Complainant’s website, copy content verbatim from Complainant’s website and purport to sell the goods found at such sites at a drastic discount. Complainant asserts that the domains in dispute are part of a rampant series of abusive registrations that have been the subject of previous enforcement efforts.
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.
1. Identical or Confusingly Similar:
The Examiner finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to the RTIC mark, for which Complainant holds valid national registrations and that is currently in use. Each of the domain names incorporates in full the RTIC mark, adding only nondistinctive matter.
2. Rights or Legitimate Interests:
The Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names. There is no evidence that Respondent has been authorized or otherwise permitted to use the RTIC mark, is using the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of goods or services, is commonly known by the domain name, or is making a noncommercial or fair use of the domain names.
3. Bad Faith Registration and Use:
The Examiner finds that the domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. The evidence indicates that the confusingly similar domain names were created to scam Complainant’s customers into believing that such sites, and the goods found for sale thereon, are sponsored by Complainant. The evidence further indicates that registration and use of the disputed domain names are part of a rampant series of abusive domain registrations. See, for example, the decisions in FA1943667; FA1951178, FA1952409; FA1957039; and FA1960218.
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.
coolers-rtic.club
coolers-rtic.online
coolers-rtic.store
coolers-rtic.shop
Jeffrey M. Samuels, Examiner
Dated: December 13, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page