Maui Jim, Inc. v. peng bo / zheng wei / Carla Porras / silo66 / silo66 silo66 / silo 508 / Michel Shalley / Alison Veldhouse / silo5x silo5x / silo 508 / Repossessed by Go Daddy
Claim Number: FA2102001932323
Complainant is Maui Jim, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by T. Blake Finney of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP, Ohio, USA. Respondent is peng bo / zheng wei / Carla Porras / silo66 / silo66 silo66 / silo 508 / Michel Shalley / Alison Veldhouse / silo5x silo5x / silo 508 / Repossessed by Go Daddy (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <jimsunglasses.com>, <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, <mj.ntrendsshops.shop>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club>, registered with NameCheap, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, and GoDaddy.com, 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 Panelist in this proceeding.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 16, 2021; the Forum received payment on February 16, 2021.
On February 17, 2021, NameCheap, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, and GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <jimsunglasses.com>, <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, <mj.ntrendsshops.shop>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, and GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, and GoDaddy.com, LLC have verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc., NameSilo, LLC, and GoDaddy.com, LLC registration agreements 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 23, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 15, 2021 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@jimsunglasses.com, postmaster@mj.summerglasses.store, postmaster@mjtopmvp.shop, postmaster@mauijimlen.com, postmaster@mauijimaloha.com, postmaster@mauijimlens.com, postmaster@mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop, postmaster@mj.ntrendsshops.shop, postmaster@mauijimdirect.com, postmaster@mauijimview.com, postmaster@mauijimoptic.com, postmaster@mauijimsus.com, postmaster@mauijimvision.com, and postmaster@mauijim.club. Also on February 23, 2021, 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.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 19, 2021, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant has used the trademark MAUI JIM in connection with the sale of sunglasses in the United States for 40 years. Complainant has rights in the MAUI JIM mark through such use in commerce and its multiple registrations of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) starting in 1986. Respondent’s domain names, registered between June 19, 2020 and January 18, 2021, are confusingly similar to Complainant’s MAUI JIM mark as they either include the dominant part of the MAUI JIM mark or the abbreviation “MJ”, and merely add letters or a generic or descriptive term, and a generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the MAUI JIM mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor does it make a legitimate non-commercial or fair use thereof as Respondent uses the domains to pass itself off as Complainant in order to sell counterfeit goods.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant and sell counterfeit goods. Additionally, Respondent registered the disputed domain names with obviously false WHOIS information.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
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 person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. It then requests that these different Respondents be consolidated into the present proceedings. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) provides that a “complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.” Despite being presented with WHOIS records that name different Registrants, prior Panels have held that consolidation of a case against multiple domain names is appropriate where there are other similarities that indicate a likelihood of common ownership. See, e.g., American Airlines, Inc. v. Ramadhir Singh, WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Reema Gupta, Ballu Balwant, Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Lucy Lionel, Lucy99, Red Keep, D2021-0294 (WIPO Mar. 11, 2021) (consolidation upheld based on “the similar content and layout of the websites that were linked to the disputed domain names; the fact that all the disputed domain names target a specific sector and the same trademark within this sector; the similar patterns in the disputed domain names; and the identical reaction of the Respondents to the Complaint, not replying to the Complainant’s contentions.”); Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Shuai Li / Nan Zhang, FA 1932371 (Forum Mar. 18, 2021) (similar website content, use of same registrars and privacy services).
Complainant contends that, despite their respective WHOIS records listing different Registrant names, the disputed domain names are controlled by the same entity because all but two domain names are registered with the same registrar, the registration information for all the domains list false phone numbers as well as false addresses that use the same postal code (a code that also does not correspond with any of the states listed in the WHOIS records). Further, the resolving websites are very similar in terms of landing pages, layout, functionality, and their copying of images from the Complainant’s website, including Complainant’s logo.
In light of the above, and in the absence of participation in these proceedings by any party claiming to be a Registrant of these domain names, the Panel determines that it is more likely than not that all of the disputed domain names are under common control by the same domain name holder. As such, the present case will proceed against all of the disputed domain names and their holder will be referred to in the singular as “Respondent”.
With respect to the <jimsunglasses.com>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club> domain names:
(1) the domain names registered by Respondent are confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names; and
(3) the disputed domain names were registered and are being used by Respondent in bad faith.
With respect to the <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, and <mj.ntrendsshops.shop> subdomain names:
(1) the subdomain names registered by Respondent are not confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.
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 and evidence 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 and supported allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
Second Level Domain Names
Complainant asserts rights in the MAUI JIM mark through Complainant’s registration of the mark with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Complainant has submitted screenshots of the USPTO website showing its ownership of registrations for the marks MAUI JIM, WWW.MAUIJIM.COM, MYMAUI, MAUIGRADIENT, and others as well as screenshots of certain pages and images from its own www.mauijim.com website. Further, a review of Complainant’s website reveals its sale of a line of sunglasses under the heading MJ SPORT. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has demonstrated registered trademark rights in the MAUI JIM mark and common-law rights in the MJ mark sufficient to satisfy the standing threshold of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant’s marks as they either include a substantial part of the MAUI JIM mark or the letters MJ, and add letters or a generic or descriptive terms such as “sunglasses”, “lens”, “direct”, “vision”, etc., and a gTLD. The use of a mark, the addition of letters or generic or descriptive terms, and the addition of a gTLD fail to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant’s entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy). See also Bittrex, Inc. v. Sergey Valerievich Kireev / Kireev, FA 1784651 (Forum June 5, 2018) (holding that the domain name consists of the BITTREX mark and adds “the letters ‘btc’ and the gTLD .com which do not distinguish the Domain Name from Complainant’s mark.”)
Therefore, with respect to <jimsunglasses.com>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club> the Panel finds that each of these disputed domain names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Third Level Subdomains
With specific regard to <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, and <mj.ntrendsshops.shop> it is apparent that the MJ mark does not appear in the first or second levels of these domain names but only in third-level “subdomains”. Domain names are organized in hierarchical levels of the DNS root domain and are viewed from right to left. Domains such as “.com”, “.store”, and “.shop” are denoted as “top level” or “first level” domains and the character string to the left of the dot is denoted as a “second level” domain. Each time another dot appears another level is created. This raises the question of whether the Policy applies to all or only certain levels of a domain name. Under the ICANN framework, the UDRP is a Consensus Policy and, as such, it applies to domain names that are registered by ICANN-accredited Registrars in all gTLDs. It is a contractual obligation that must be adhered to by everyone who registers a domain name with such a Registrar in a gTLD.
The 2013 Registrar Accreditation Agreement (“RAA”), at ¶ 1.15, defines a “Registered Name” as “a domain name within the domain of a gTLD, whether consisting of two (2) or more (e.g., john.smith.name) levels, about which a gTLD Registry Operator (or an Affiliate or subcontractor thereof engaged in providing Registry Services) maintains data in a Registry Database, arranges for such maintenance, or derives revenue from such maintenance.” (emphasis added). Next, in RAA ¶ 1.21, a “Registry Database” is defined as “a database comprised of data about one or more DNS domain names within the domain of a registry that is used to generate either DNS resource records that are published authoritatively or responses to domain-name availability lookup requests or Whois queries, for some or all of those names.”[i]
When a Whois query is conducted for domain names in the “.com”, “.store”, and “.shop” gTLDs, results are returned only for the first and second levels as it is only these levels for which authoritative data are actually registered, maintained, and published by the Registrar.[ii] In these instances, third level subdomains are added by the Registrant, at its own discretion and without any input or restriction by the Registrar, as a server-level addressing mechanism similar to URLs that are built around domain names. As such, there is no information contained within the Registry Database about these subdomains.
Since third levels of “.com”, “.store”, and “.shop” domain names are not maintained in a Registry Database and are not part of the Registered Name, this leads to the conclusion that, with respect to such gTLDs, “domain name dispute resolution policies do not apply to third-level domain names.” https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/third-level. See also Domain Name Arbitration, 1.01-A.2 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, 2nd ed. 2019) (“cybersquatting concerns abusive registration of domain names at the second level.”) In Comfort Window Co., Inc. v. AL-SADEQOUN LIL-TASWEEQ LLC, FA 1447758 (Forum July 25, 2012), the Panel noted that “[t]he “domain names” <comfort.windoows.net> and <comfort.windooows.com> are not domain names, but subdomain names. A subdomain is a domain that is part of a larger domain.” It went on to deny relief based upon a conclusion that “[t]he UDRP rules do not apply to subdomain names. In order for the UDRP Policy to apply, there must be evidence that these subdomains are registered with a registrar.” Id.
In the present case, the Complaint does not meet the threshold standard of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) with regard to the claimed <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, and <mj.ntrendsshops.shop> subdomain names as Complainant has not demonstrated ownership of any trademark rights that bear on the first and second levels of the domain names <summerglasses.store>, <vipshophf.shop>, or <ntrendsshops.shop>. As such, the remainder of this decision will not address these three disputed subdomains.
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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the MAUI JIM or MJ marks. In considering this issue, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent may be commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Timothy Mays aka Linda Haley aka Edith Barberdi, FA 1617061 (Forum June 9, 2015) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <amazondevice.org>, <amazondevices.org> and <buyamazondevices.com> domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the pertinent WHOIS information identified “Timothy Mays,” “Linda Haley,” and “Edith Barberdi” as registrants of the disputed domain names). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark can support a conclusion that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed Respondent as “Operi Manaha,” and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.) Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants variously as “peng bo / Carla Porras / silo66 / silo66 silo66 / silo 508 / silo5x silo5x / silo 508 / Repossessed by Go Daddy” and no evidence suggests that Complainant authorized Respondent to use the MAUI JIM or MJ marks in any way. As Respondent has not submitted a Response or made any other submission in this case it does not contest Complainant’s assertions. Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Complainant also argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof as Respondent uses the disputed domain names to pass itself off as Complainant and offer for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods. The use of a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant in order to sell counterfeit or other unauthorized goods is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Nokia Corp. v. Eagle, FA 1125685 (Forum Feb. 7, 2008) (finding the respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as the complainant in order to advertise and sell unauthorized products of the complainant was not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)); 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 existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization). Here, Complainant provides screenshots showing the resolving websites for the disputed domain names. These sites prominently display Complainant’s mark and logo, mimic the layout and color scheme of the Complainant’s website (including its “Contact” and “About Us” pages), and appear to offer for sale seemingly counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products at significant discounts. Respondent has not appeared in this case and so does not rebut Complainant’s prima facie case or offer any alternate explanation for its actions. Upon, a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds that Respondent seeks to impersonate the Complainant and thus fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use thereof per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
With respect to Respondent’s prior knowledge of Complainant’s marks, the Complaint asserts that, “[a]s a result of Maui Jim’s 40 years of providing high quality products to consumers worldwide, the MAUI JIM® trademark is a well-known, famous mark with substantial value.” In support, Complainant submits screenshots from its own <mauijim.com> website but, based on this evidence, the Panel is unable to conclude that the marks are famous. However, Complainant also submits screenshots of the websites that resolve from the various disputed domain names and, from these, it is quite clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of the MAUI JIM and MJ marks and was specifically targeting them by registering these domain names.
Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because Respondent uses the domains to pass itself off as Complainant and offer counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods for sale. The use of a disputed domain name to pass oneself off as a complainant or to offer unauthorized or counterfeit goods for sale is evidence of bad faith disruption of a complainant’s business and an attempt to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (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 Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”); see additionally H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). As Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving websites for the disputed domain names it is apparent that these display Complainant’s marks, images of its products, copies of certain textual and graphic elements of its website, and also appear to offer for sale counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products at significantly discounted prices. Respondent has not appeared in this case or otherwise sought to rebut Complainant’s assertions. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has met its burden of proving that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).
Complainant further alleges that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith because the Respondent provided “obviously false” registration information. In most cases, providing false WHOIS contact information can indicate bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See CNU ONLINE Holdings, LLC v. Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., FA 1614972 (Forum May 29, 2015) (“As the Panel sees that Respondent has provided false or misleading WHOIS information, the Panel finds bad faith in Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”) Here, Complainant provides evidence that Respondent provided false or misleading WHOIS contact information (i.e. phone numbers, addresses, etc.) that either does not exist or could not possibly be correct (i.e. a zip code that corresponds to a different state than the one given in the Registrant’s address). Therefore, the Panel finds that this further supports its finding of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy with respect to the domain names <jimsunglasses.com>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED for these domain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <jimsunglasses.com>, <mjtopmvp.shop>, <mauijimlen.com>, <mauijimaloha.com>, <mauijimlens.com>, <mauijimdirect.com>, <mauijimview.com>, <mauijimoptic.com>, <mauijimsus.com>, <mauijimvision.com>, and <mauijim.club> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy with respect to the subdomains <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, and <mj.ntrendsshops.shop>, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED for these subdomain names.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <mj.summerglasses.store>, <mjsunglass.vipshophf.shop>, and <mj.ntrendsshops.shop> domain names shall REMAIN WITH Respondent.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: March 24, 2021
[i] There are some gTLD and ccTLD Registry Operators that accept domain name registrations at the third level (i.e., “.law”, “.pro”, “.co.uk”, “.com.co”, etc.) which do maintain third level domains in the Registry Database. But “.com”, “.store”, and “.shop” are not in this category.
[ii] The Panel notes that the WHOIS records submitted into evidence by Complainant for these three domain names at issue only display the character strings <summerglasses.store>, <vipshophf.shop>, and <ntrendsshops.shop> and do not mention or relate to any of the asserted third-level subdomains.
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page