RTIC Outdoors, LLC v. [unspecified]
Claim Number: FA2112001975652
Complainant: RTIC Outdoors, LLC of Houston, Texas, United States of America.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Fish & Richardson P.C. of Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States of America.
Respondent: [not specified].
Respondent Representative:
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotOnline Inc.; DotStore Inc.; GMO Registry, Inc.
Registrars: Dynadot, LLC; Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd.
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.
Mr. Richard Hill was named as Examiner on December 29, 2021.
Complainant submitted: December 2, 2021
Commencement: December 6, 2021
Default Date: December 21, 2021
Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure (the “URS”) 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.
Preliminary Issue: Multiple Respondents
In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same entity or there are multiple registrants acting in concert.
Paragraph 1.1.3 of the URS states (emphasis added): “Multiple Registrants can be named in one Complaint only if it can be shown that they are in some way related.”
Paragraph 9.1 of the URS states (emphasis added): “There will be no discovery or hearing; the evidence will be the materials submitted with the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire record used by the Examiner to make a Determination.
Thus the Examiner has no scope to make any independent investigation: the Examiner must base the Determination solely on the evidence in the file.
In the instant case, the evidence presented by Complainant shows that the following disputed domain names resolve to web sites that are essentially identical; that the name servers for the disputed domain names are the same; and that three of the domain names were registered on November 21, 2021, while one was registered on November 18, 2021: <rtic-outdoorsus.shop><rtic-outdoorsus.store><rtic-outdoorus.shop><rtic-outdoorus.store>. The Panel finds that Complainant has presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Registrants of the four domain names cited above are related. Consequently, the Panel will rule on those four contested domain names, and the registrants are collectively referred to as “Respondent”.
The evidence presented by the Complainant shows that the following disputed domain names resolve to web sites that are essentially identical, but not identical to the web sites referred to above; that the name servers for the disputed domain names are not identical nor are they identical to the name servers referred to above; and that all four of the domain names were registered on November 18, 2021: <outlest-rtic.shop><rtic.online><sale-rtic.online><sale-rtic.shop>. The Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to establish that the Registrants of the four domain names cited above are related to Respondent. Consequently, the Panel will dismiss the Complaint with respect to those four contested domain names.
Substantive discussion
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.
[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.
[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 online 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.
The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark
Complainant has registered the mark RTIC, with rights dating back to 2016, and uses it to market premium outdoor products, including hard coolers, soft coolers, drinkware, bags, and camping products.
The Examiner finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s RTIC mark because they incorporate the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive terms “outdoor” or “outdoors”, the geographic term “us”, and a gTLD.
Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name
Registrant is not a licensee of Complainant, nor has Complainant authorized Registrant to use its mark in any way. Where a respondent fails to submit a response, the Examiner may look to the WHOIS information to determine whether Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information does not show any name for the registrants. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names.
The disputed domain names resolve to web sites that display Complainant’s mark and logo and offer for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Examiner finds that this does not establish rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. See Keihin Corp. v. Youli Ltd., FA 1106190 (Forum Dec. 18, 2007) (finding no rights and legitimate interests when the respondent sold counterfeit versions of the complainant’s products in competition with the complainant’s business); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (FORUM Mar. 21, 2014)(finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).
For all the above reasons, the Panel finds that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain names.
The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith
As already noted, the disputed domain names resolve to web sites that display Complainant’s mark and logo and offer for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. The Examiner finds that this shows that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to its web sites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web sites. See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) (“As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant).
Consequently, the Examiner finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith
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.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence for four of the domain names at issue; the Examiner hereby Orders that the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
1. rtic-outdoorsus.shop
2. rtic-outdoorsus.store
3. rtic-outdoorus.shop
4. rtic-outdoorus.store
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that Complainant has NOT demonstrated, by a standard of clear and convincing evidence, that all of the Registrants are related; consequently the Examiner determines that the Complaint regarding the following domain names should be dismissed without any findings and without prejudice; the Examiner hereby Orders that the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent.
1. outlest-rtic.shop
2. rtic.online
3. sale-rtic.online
4. sale-rtic.shop>
Richard W. Hill, Examiner
Dated: December 30, 2021
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page