Westmore · UDRP decision
FORUM · Case No. FA1908001858784

Skecherssaleireland.com

TransferFORUM-indexed · informational, not legal advice

The Panel ordered transfer of <skecherssaleireland.com>, finding it confusingly similar to Complainant's SKECHERS mark, finding no rights or legitimate interests, and finding bad-faith registration and use based on a website that passed itself off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and likely counterfeit products.

Outcome
Transfer
At a glance
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2019-09-21
Panelist(s)
David E. Sorkin
Complainant
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II
Respondent
Graiden Cruz
Counsel
Marshall A. Lerner
Law firm
Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP
Disputed domain(s)
skecherssaleireland.com
Citation weightrelies on 5 authorities
Domain history UDRP Intelligence

The timeline behind skecherssaleireland.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Westmore reconstructs the full history behind skecherssaleireland.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:

Registration → decision → today timeline
Archived Wayback evidence of what the site showed
Registry bad-faith signals
The live current registrant
Available in UDRP Intelligence
Verified public record
Outcome & remedy
Complaint granted. Panel ordered transfer of skecherssaleireland.com.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
No RDNH raised.
Westmore Insight

Respondent registered a confusingly similar domain and used it to create confusion with Complainant while promoting unauthorized and likely counterfeit products. The Panel found this conduct indicative of bad-faith registration and use.

The three-part test
Identical or confusingly similarMet
Rights or legitimate interestsMet
Registered and used in bad faithMet

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

Related decisions
Case details
Provider
FORUM
Outcome
Transfer
Decision date
2019-09-21
Panel
David E. Sorkin
Full decision
7 min read · hosted by Westmore

DECISION Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Graiden Cruz Claim Number: FA1908001858784 PARTIES Complainant is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and its wholly owned subsidiary Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II ("Complainant"), represented by Marshall A. Lerner of Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Graiden Cruz ("Respondent"), Australia. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <skecherssaleireland.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. David E. Sorkin as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on August 22, 2019; the Forum received payment on August 22, 2019. On August 23, 2019, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <skecherssaleireland.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). On August 28, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 17, 2019 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@skecherssaleireland.com. Also on August 28, 2019, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On September 18, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed David E. Sorkin as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules, and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant's footwear and apparel products are sold worldwide under the SKECHERS trademark. Complainant owns a U.S. trademark registration for SKECHERS issued in 1994. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <skecherssaleireland.com> in August 2018. The domain name is being used for a website that prominently displays the SKECHERS mark along with photographs of what Complainant suspects to be counterfeit versions of its products, offering these products for sale. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name; is not a licensee, authorized retailer, or distributor of Complainant's products; and is not authorized to use the domain name or the SKECHERS mark. Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <skecherssaleireland.com> is confusingly similar to its SKECHERS mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a), and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (3d ed. 2017), available at http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations"). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name <skecherssaleireland.com> incorporates Complainant's registered SKECHERS trademark, adding the generic term "sale," the geographic term "Ireland," and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Kayleigh Herbert, FA 1815213 (Forum Dec. 5, 2018) (finding <saleskechers.com> confusingly similar to SKECHERS); Karen Millen Fashions Ltd. v. Leonie Helena, D2013-0001 (WIPO Feb. 27, 2013) (finding <karenmillenireland-sales.com> confusingly similar to KAREN MILLEN). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights. Rights or Legitimate Interests Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization, and it is being used for a website that passes off as Complainant for the purpose of selling competing and likely counterfeit products. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Kayleigh Herbert, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances). Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent'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 [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location." Respondent registered a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, and is using it to create confusion with Complainant and promote unauthorized and likely counterfeit products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Zhang Hanying, FA 1839514 (Forum May 17, 2019) (finding bad faith registration and use under similar circumstances); Skechers U.S.A., Inc. & Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Kayleigh Herbert, supra (same). The Panel so finds. DECISION Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skecherssaleireland.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David E. Sorkin, Panelist Dated: September 21, 2019 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

Source of record: FORUM . Reproduced for research; FORUM is the authoritative source.

Beyond the decision

What Westmore sees around skecherssaleireland.com

The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.

Connected to Westmore UDRP Intelligence
115,871 decisions · citations · panelists · parties · domain history
Eleanor · UDRP intelligence
Ask Eleanor about this decision
Ask Eleanor about this decision

A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.

Unlocking Eleanor for this case uses 1 of your complimentary Intelligence unlocks· 3 remaining

Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.

Westmore Professional · Unlock the intelligence

The decision is only the beginning.

You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.

Citation Intelligence
How this decision is cited and treated across the corpus.
Panelist Intelligence
The panel's tendencies, outcomes and reasoning patterns.
Domain History
Ownership chronology — creation vs. respondent acquisition.
Opposing-Party Research
Complainant, counsel and portfolio context.
Independent Case Review
Eleanor challenges your filing before the other side does.
Professional Matters
Open, research and manage matters end to end.
$395/month
Unlock Westmore Professional Annual & firm seats available · cancel anytime
Take the next step
Westmore UDRP · find the right service

Westmore UDRP records draw on FORUM-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.

Confidential buyer-side representation for premium-domain acquisitions.

LinkedIn
Insights
Briefs
Who Owns
Westmore
Research
UDRP
Support
Buyer-side only· Escrow-protected· NDA on request

© 2026 Westmore. All rights reserved.

A note on privacy

Westmore uses a few essential cookies to keep this site secure and running smoothly. Nothing about your identity or interest is ever sold or shared.