Skecherswarehouseoutlet.com

The timeline behind skecherswarehouseoutlet.com

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

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. Jq Lin Claim Number: FA2502002141491 PARTIES Complainant is Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II ("Complainant"), represented by Marshall A. Lerner of Kleinberg & Lerner, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Jq Lin ("Respondent"), Illinois, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <skecherswarehouseoutlet.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc. 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. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 21, 2025; Forum received payment on February 21, 2025. On February 24, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <skecherswarehouseoutlet.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. 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 February 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@skecherswarehouseoutlet.com. Also on February 27, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail 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. A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on March 17, 2025. On March 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS There are two Complainants in this matter: Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II. Complainants assert that Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc., and as such, both entities are in privity with each other. The relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as "a single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple complainants to proceed as a single entity where a sufficient link between them is demonstrated. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic & Paralympic Games v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated: "It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity." Similarly, in Tasty Baking Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003), the panel treated the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks incorporated in the disputed domain names. Likewise, in Am. Family Health Srvs. Group, LLC v. Logan, FA 220049 (Forum Feb. 6, 2004), the panel found a sufficient link between the complainants where a licensing agreement existed regarding use of the TOUGHLOVE mark. But see AmeriSource Corp. v. Park, FA 99134 (Forum Nov. 5, 2001) ("This Panel finds it difficult to hold that a domain name that may belong to AmerisourceBergen Corporation (i.e., the subject Domain Names) should belong to AmeriSource Corporation because they are affiliated companies."). The Panel finds that the evidence submitted in the Complaint sufficiently establishes a nexus between Complainants and accordingly treats them as a single entity in this proceeding. Throughout the decision, Complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant." PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant i) Complainant is a multi-billion-dollar global leader in the lifestyle and performance footwear industry. Complainant holds rights in the SKECHERS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered August 30, 1994). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKECHERS mark, as it fully incorporates the mark while merely adding the generic terms "warehouse" and "outlet," along with the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com." ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the SKECHERS mark. Moreover, Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, as Respondent is using the SKECHERS trademark to sell products that directly compete with Complainant's business. iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name containing an exact reproduction of the well-known SKECHERS mark to exploit consumer recognition of the mark. Further, Respondent is impersonating Complainant by listing Complainant's actual warehouse outlet store locations on its homepage and providing a series of @skechers.com email addresses on its "Contact Us" page. B. Respondent i) Respondent is an individual user who registered the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, including domain trading as a personal interest and learning WordPress. ii) The website has never been publicly launched or used to provide services or content; it has remained private for Respondent's learning purposes. As of the current date, the domain is "down for maintenance," as shown in the attached screenshot. The displayed message indicates that the site is temporarily down for maintenance. iii) Respondent emphasizes that the registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bona fide and not for any malicious purpose. iv) Respondent has no intent to mislead users or harm Complainant's reputation. FINDINGS 1. Complainant has established rights in the SKECHERS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered August 30, 1994). 2. The disputed domain name was registered on September 1, 2024. 3. As of December 20, 2024, Respondent's website displayed a list of Complainant's actual warehouse outlet store locations. The links labeled "Men" and "Women" appeared in the upper left-hand corner of the homepage. When accessed, these links directed users to webpages featuring photographs of Complainant's footwear and apparel products, which constitute the core of Complainant's business. 4. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a webpage displaying a message indicating that the site is "down for maintenance." DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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. Identical and/or Confusingly Similar Complainant asserts rights in the SKECHERS mark through its registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,851,977, registered August 30, 1994). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Since Complainant has submitted evidence of its trademark registrations with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SKECHERS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <skecherswarehouseoutlet.com> is confusingly similar to the SKECHERS mark, as it fully incorporates the mark while merely adding the generic terms "warehouse" and "outlet," along with the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com." Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), the addition of a generic term or a gTLD does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a registered mark. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also Franklin Covey Co. v. franklincoveykorea, FA 1774660 (Forum Apr. 11, 2018) (finding <franklincoveykorea.com> confusingly similar to the FRANKLIN COVEY mark, as "[t]he addition of a geographic term and a gTLD do not negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"). The Panel notes that the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant's mark, with only the addition of the generic terms "warehouse" and "outlet," along with the gTLD ".com." Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element."). Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Jq Lin" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Complainant contends that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the domain to impersonate Complainant and sell unauthorized SKECHERS products that compete directly with Complainant's business. Passing off as a complainant while offering to sell counterfeit versions of the complainant's products does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use where the respondent used the website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products being resold without authorization). Complainant highlights that Respondent's website displays a list of Complainant's actual warehouse outlet store locations. The links labeled "Men" and "Women" appear in the upper left-hand corner of the homepage, directing users to webpages featuring photographs of Complainant's footwear and apparel products, which constitute the core of Complainant's business. The Panel notes that Complainant's assertion is supported by a screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website captured on December 20, 2024. The Panel finds that Respondent did not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) because the website featured Complainant's mark and various photographs related to Complainant's business. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to establish a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Given these findings, the Panel determines that Complainant has established a prima facie case. As the burden of proof shifts to Respondent, the Panel must assess whether Respondent has rebutted the prima facie case by demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent argues that: (i) Respondent is an individual user who registered the disputed domain name for legitimate purposes, including domain trading as a personal interest and learning WordPress; (ii) The website associated with the disputed domain name has never been publicly launched or used to provide services or content; (iii) It has remained private for Respondent's learning purposes; and (iv) As of the current date, the domain is "down for maintenance." The Panel notes that Respondent's screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website displays the statement: "The site is currently down for maintenance. Please excuse the dust, and try back later. If you have any additional questions or comments, we would love to hear from you!" However, this is contrary to Complainant's assertion that, as of December 20, 2024, Respondent's website displayed a list of Complainant's actual warehouse outlet store locations. The links labeled "Men" and "Women" appeared in the upper left-hand corner of the homepage, directing users to webpages featuring photographs of Complainant's footwear and apparel products, which constitute the core of Complainant's business. The Panel observes that while the disputed domain name currently resolves to an inactive website displaying Respondent's maintenance message, this does not negate Respondent's prior impersonation activities. Moreover, given Respondent's past use of the disputed domain name for impersonation, the Panel finds Respondent's claims—namely, that "the registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bona fide and not for any malicious purpose" and "Respondent has no intent to mislead users or harm Complainant's reputation"—to lack credibility. Accordingly, the Panel rejects Respondent's arguments. Since Respondent has failed to rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant contends that the very nature of Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name evidences bad faith. Respondent knowingly registered the disputed domain name containing an exact reproduction of the well-known SKECHERS mark to exploit consumer recognition of the mark. The Panel finds that passing off as a complainant while offering to sell suspected counterfeit versions of the complainant's products can constitute evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (b)(iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith by passing off as the complainant and offering for sale competitive, counterfeit goods). The Panel recalls that Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the disputed domain name's website, which displays a list of Complainant's actual warehouse outlet store locations. The links labeled "Men" and "Women" appear in the upper left-hand corner of the homepage, directing users to webpages featuring photographs of Complainant's footwear and apparel products. The Panel finds that Respondent's impersonation activities are disruptive to Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Respondent argues that the registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bona fide and not for any malicious purpose and that Respondent has no intent to mislead users or harm Complainant's reputation. However, as discussed above, given Respondent's past use of the disputed domain name for impersonation, the Panel finds Respondent's claims—namely, that "the registration and use of the disputed domain name are in bona fide and not for any malicious purpose" and "Respondent has no intent to mislead users or harm Complainant's reputation"—to lack credibility. Accordingly, the Panel rejects Respondent's arguments. Complainant further asserts that Respondent's decision to register an exact reproduction of Complainant's SKECHERS mark in the gTLD ".com" and use the website to sell SKECHERS-branded shoes demonstrates that Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant and its business. The SKECHERS designation is unique and arbitrary, making it unlikely that Respondent devised the term independently. The Panel infers, based on the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's manner of use of the disputed domain name, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SKECHERS mark before registering the disputed domain name, which constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <skecherswarehouseoutlet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., pursuant to Complainant's request. Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist Dated: March 18, 2025 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.