THREDUP INC. v. Thredup
Claim Number: FA2204001993727
Complainant is THREDUP INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Joshua Gerben of Gerben Perrott PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Thredup ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <thredup.online>, registered with eNom, 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.
David E. Sorkin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on April 25, 2022; the Forum received payment on April 25, 2022.
On April 26, 2022, eNom, LLC confirmed by email to the Forum that the <thredup.online> domain name is registered with eNom, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. eNom, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the eNom, 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 April 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 17, 2022 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@thredup.online. Also on April 27, 2022, 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 May 20, 2022, 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant operates the ThredUp website, which offers resale services for clothing. Complainant has used the THREDUP mark in connection with its services since at least as early as 2009, and owns United States trademark registrations for the mark in both standard character and stylized form.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name <thredup.online> in March 2022. The domain name currently resolves to a page stating that the domain name has been suspended pending verification of the registrant's contact data. Complainant asserts that the domain name "exists solely to further a phishing scheme." Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed to use Complainant's mark.
Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <thredup.online> is identical or confusingly similar to its THREDUP 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.
The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical 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.
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").
The disputed domain name <thredup.online> corresponds to Complainant's registered THREDUP trademark, with the ".online" top-level domain appended thereto. The addition of a top-level domain is normally irrelevant for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See, e.g., THREDUP INC. v. Mike Doonin, FA 1982763 (Forum Feb. 28, 2022) (finding <thredup.careers> identical to THREDUP). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be identical to Complainant's registered mark.
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 corresponds to Complainant's registered mark, and there is no indication that Respondent has made any active use of the name. Although Respondent has included Complainant's name in its registration data, it appears that Respondent has failed to respond to a verification request from the registrar, and the Panel doubts the accuracy of the registration data. These circumstances suggest that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Sezzle Inc. v. Sezzle Inc., FA 1988843 (Forum May 11, 2022) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances, notwithstanding respondent's use of complainant's name in domain name registration data).
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.
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 corresponding to Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, and the name has been suspended by the registrar, apparently because Respondent failed to respond to a request to verify its contact information. Complainant alleges, and Respondent does not dispute, that the domain name was registered for use in connection with a phishing scheme. Such circumstances support an inference that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. See, e.g., Bunge Ltd., Bunge Asia Pte. Ltd, & Bunge SA v. Ismailov Iskandar, FA 1989818 (Forum May 2, 2022) (inferring bad faith registration and use of domain name incorporating trademark where respondent failed to offer explanation for selection or intended use); Charter Communications Holding Co. v. Khurram Khan, FA 1775735 (same). The Panel so finds.
Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <thredup.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
David E. Sorkin, Panelist
Dated: May 23, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page