DECISION

 

Target Brands, Inc. v. xing star / xin goq / yuan zhu / da ming

Claim Number: FA2502002139956

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Target Brands, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jeanette Eriksson of FairWinds Partners LLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondents are xing star, xin goq, yuan zhu, and da ming ("Respondents"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <figmintcookware.com> and <cat-jack.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc, and <opalhouseshop.com> and <xhilarationbrand.com>, registered with Name.com, 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2025; Forum received payment on February 12, 2025.

 

On February 12, 2025, Name.com, Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <opalhouseshop.com> and <xhilarationbrand.com> domain names are registered with Name.com, Inc., and that Respondents yuan zhu and da ming are the current registrants of these names and are bound by the Name.com, Inc. registration agreement and have thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy"). A corresponding confirmation was received on February 13, 2025, from Dynadot Inc in regard to the <figmintcookware.com> and <cat-jack.com> domain names and Respondents xing star and xin goq.

 

On February 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 6, 2025 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@figmintcookware.com, postmaster@cat-jack.com, postmaster@opalhouseshop.com, postmaster@xhilarationbrand.com. Also on February 14, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the email addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts.

 

Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On March 7, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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[s]" 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 Respondents.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondents to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are effectively under the control of a single entity operating under multiple aliases. 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."

 

Complainant notes that the disputed domain names all contain Complainant's trademarks; resolve to websites that are similar to one another in appearance, structure, and function; and were registered with the same registrar within a period of approximately one month. (Two of the domain names were subsequently transferred to another registrar.) Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names are all owned by the same person or entity and that they and other domain names are being used in connection with the same concerted phishing and impersonation scheme that has been the subject of other proceedings under the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. huang di / fu mu / lu jun / ge li / huang hou / hai zi, FA 2134436 (Forum Feb. 6, 2025) (ordering transfer of <sonia-kashuk.com>, <ava-viv.com>, <theshadeshore.com>, <goodgatherbrand.com>, <thresholdofficial.com> and <anewdayclothing.com>); Target Brands, Inc. v. li li, FA 2127934 (Forum Dec. 29, 2024) (ordering transfer of <market-pantry.com>); Target Brands, Inc. v. lai jing, FA 2124804 (Forum Dec. 5, 2024) (ordering transfer of <favorite-day.com>); Target Brands, Inc. v. da you, FA 2116790 (Forum Oct. 16, 2024) (ordering transfer of <mondo-llama.com>).

 

Having considered Complainant's allegations and noting that none of the Respondents have come forward to dispute the allegation that they are one entity acting under multiple aliases, nor to object to the consolidation of the disputed domain names in a single proceeding, the Panel considers it appropriate to treat the disputed domain names as being under the common control of a single person or entity (hereinafter "Respondent"). See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. huang di / fu mu / lu jun / ge li / huang hou / hai zi, supra (treating domain names as being under common control in similar circumstances); Toronto-Dominion Bank v. Lopz232 morriss / LaQuinta Inn / Rashid Mustafa / David Kallusky, FA 2066467 (Forum Nov. 14, 2023) (same); Robert Half International Inc. v. Keith Waddell / Robert Half International Inc / saketh chengelli / homedepot, FA 2058932 (Forum Sept. 25, 2023) (same).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant owns and uses various brands and trademarks in its retail stores and on its website, including FIGMINT, CAT & JACK, OPALHOUSE, and XHILARATION. Complainant promotes these marks extensively in its advertising and states that they have been the subject of extensive media coverage. All four marks have been in use since prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain names in this proceeding and are the subject of trademark registrations owned by Complainant in many jurisdictions around the world.

 

The disputed domain names <figmintcookware.com>, <cat-jack.com>, <opalhouseshop.com>, and <xhilarationbrand.com> were registered in May and June 2024. The names are registered in the names of privacy registration services on behalf of Respondent. Each domain name is being used for a "spam blog" or "splog," an ostensibly informational website that attempts to pass off as a legitimate website associated with the owner of the corresponding trademark to divert traffic, display ads, promote other websites, or harvest user information. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and is not authorized to use Complainant's marks.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to one of its marks; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that each of the disputed domain names is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and that the disputed domain names were registered and are 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 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.

 

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/; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; 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 <figmintcookware.com> incorporates Complainant's registered FIGMINT trademark, adding the generic term "cookware" and the ".com" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <cat-jack.com> incorporates Complainant's registered CAT & JACK trademark, substituting a hyphen for the ampersand symbol and adding the ".com" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <opalhouseshop.com> incorporates Complainant's registered OPALHOUSE trademark, adding the generic term "shop" and the ".com" top-level domain. The disputed domain name <xhilarationbrand.com> incorporates Complainant's registered XHILARATION trademark, adding the generic term "brand" and the ".com" top-level domain. These additions and alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain names and Complainant's marks. See, e.g.,

 

Target Brands, Inc. v. huang di / fu mu / lu jun / ge li / huang hou / hai zi, supra (finding <goodgatherbrand.com> confusingly similar to GOOD & GATHER). The Panel considers the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to marks 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 names, 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 names incorporate Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and they are being used for spam blogs that attempt to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. huang di / fu mu / lu jun / ge li / huang hou / hai zi, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Target Brands, Inc. v. li li, supra (same); Target Brands, Inc. v. lai jing, supra (same); Target Brands, Inc. v. da you, supra (same).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, 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 names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered a 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 used multiple aliases and privacy registration services to register several domain names incorporating Complainant's registered marks without authorization, and is using them for spam blogs that attempt to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Target Brands, Inc. v. huang di / fu mu / lu jun / ge li / huang hou / hai zi, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Target Brands, Inc. v. li li, supra (same); Target Brands, Inc. v. lai jing, supra (same); Target Brands, Inc. v. da you, 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 <figmintcookware.com>, <cat-jack.com>, <opalhouseshop.com> and <xhilarationbrand.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: March 7, 2025