FAB IP CO LP v. Qbdh Rvdww

Claim Number: FA2311002069402



Complainant is FAB IP CO LP ("Complainant"), represented by Joseph-Anaël Lemieux of Davies Ward Phillips & Vineberg LLP, Canada. Respondent is Qbdh Rvdww ("Respondent"), China.



The domain name at issue is <>, registered with, Inc.



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.


Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.



Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 2, 2023. Forum received payment on November 2, 2023.


On November 3, 2023,, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <> domain name is registered with, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name., Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the, 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 November 6, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 27, 2023 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 Also on November 6, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.


On November 28, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, 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, FAB IP CO LP, provides a variety of goods and services in the United States and on the Internet under the stylized "Bench." marks, in which Complainant has rights through registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). Complainant has acquired considerable goodwill in connection with the extensive and continuous use of the "Bench." marks for, inter alia, clothing and clothing accessories. The "Bench." marks are distinctive and very well-known throughout Canada, the United States and elsewhere.


Respondent's <> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's "Bench." marks.


Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name since Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's "Bench." marks and there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by that name. Additionally, Respondent does not use the domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the domain name in a deliberate attempt to cause confusion in the minds of consumers and fool them into thinking that the wares and services provided by Respondent originate from Complainant.


Respondent registered the <> domain name in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the "Bench." marks and uses it in bad faith to attract Complainant's customers or potential customers to Respondent's website, confuse them into believing Respondent's website is Complainant's authentic website, and fraudulently profit from their subsequent potential transactions.


B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.



Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.



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 the domain name should be cancelled or transferred:


(i)                      the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii)                      Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(iii)                      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 as 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 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').


Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has shown that it has rights in the stylized "Bench." marks through registrations with the USPTO (Reg. Nos. 3,956,390, registered on May 10, 2011; 3,960,630, registered on May 17, 2011; and 4,048,167, registered on November 1, 2011). The Panel finds Respondent's <> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, only differing from the word of the marks by the addition of the word "boutique" and the omission of the period. These differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, WIPO Case No. D2000-0429.


Complainant has established this element.


Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy sets out three illustrative circumstances as examples which, if established by Respondent, shall demonstrate rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, i.e.


(i)         before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or


(ii)         Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or


(iii)         Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.


The <> domain name was registered on June 18, 2022, many years after Complainant has shown that its "Bench." marks had become very well-known. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's stylized "Bench." marks and purporting to offer, in French and English, discounted authentic "Bench." clothing.


These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.


The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.


Complainant has established this element.


Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

(iv)        by using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant's very well-known "Bench." mark when Respondent registered the <> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source of Respondent's website and of the goods promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).


Complainant has established this element.



Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.


Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.




Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: November 30, 2023





Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page