DECISION
Sunday Red, LLC v. Markham Cathy / Cathy Markham / Levy Renee / Renee Levy / Schulte Muriel / Muriel Schulte / Arenas Rodrigo / Rodrigo Arenas / raissa Putri / Putri raissa / Campbell Kimberly / Kimberly Campbell / White Tammy / Tammy White / Jahn Mathias / Mathias Jahn / ElAll diaa / diaa ElAll
Claim Number: FA2502002141010
PARTIES
Complainant is Sunday Red, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Markham Cathy / Cathy Markham / Levy Renee / Renee Levy / Schulte Muriel / Muriel Schulte / Arenas Rodrigo / Rodrigo Arenas / raissa Putri / Putri raissa / Campbell Kimberly / Kimberly Campbell / White Tammy / Tammy White / Jahn Mathias / Mathias Jahn / ElAll diaa / diaa ElAll ("Respondent"), Germany and United States.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <sundayreduk.com>, <sundayreduae.com>, <sundayredswitzerland.com>, <sundayredsuomi.com>, <sundayrednorge.com>, <sundayrednederland.com>, <sundayredireland.com>, <sundayreddanmark.com>, <sundayredcanada.com>, <sundayredbelgium.com> and <sundayredwebsite.com> (the "Domain Names"), registered with CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED.
PANEL
Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 19, 2025. Forum received payment on February 19, 2025.
On February 20, 21 and 24, 2025, CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the Domain Names are registered with CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED has verified that Respondent is bound by the CNOBIN INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY LIMITED 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 March 4, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 24, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@sundayreduk.com, postmaster@sundayreduae.com, postmaster@sundayredswitzerland.com, postmaster@sundayredsuomi.com, postmaster@sundayrednorge.com, postmaster@sundayrednederland.com, postmaster@sundayredireland.com, postmaster@sundayreddanmark.com, postmaster@sundayredcanada.com, postmaster@sundayredbelgium.com, and postmaster@sundayredwebsite.com. Also on March 4, 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 registrations as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 25, 2025, 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.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Paragraph 3(c) of 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". Paragraph 1(d) of Forum's Supplemental Rules defines "The Holder of a Domain Name Registration" as "the single person or entity listed in the registration information, as verified by the Registrar, at the time of commencement" and sub-paragraph 1(d)(i) provides that a Complainant wishing to make an argument for a single Respondent having multiple aliases must comply with Supplemental Rules 4(c) and 17(a)(i).
Complainant has shown that the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases.
Hence this decision refers to Markham Cathy / Cathy Markham / Levy Renee / Renee Levy / Schulte Muriel / Muriel Schulte / Arenas Rodrigo / Rodrigo Arenas / raissa Putri / Putri raissa / Campbell Kimberly / Kimberly Campbell / White Tammy / Tammy White / Jahn Mathias / Mathias Jahn / ElAll diaa / diaa ElAll as "Respondent".
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant, Sunday Red, LLC, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Taylor Made Golf Company, Inc. ("TaylorMade"), a leading manufacturer of golf equipment and accessories, and is the culmination of a well-known, years-long collaboration between TaylorMade and professional golfer Tiger Woods. Complainant owns the exclusive rights to the SUNDAY RED and SUN DAY RED trademarks and service marks (collectively, the "Sun Day Red Marks"), which it has used in connection with golf apparel, footwear, and related goods since the announcement of the brand in February 2024 and launch of its retail store in May 2024. Complainant also owns the domain names <sundayred.com> and <sundayred.ca>, which Complainant uses to provide information about its goods sold under the Sun Day Red Marks. The name Sun Day Red derives from Tiger Woods' famous tradition of wearing a red shirt on the final day, traditionally a Sunday, of professional golf tournaments. Complainant also has pending trademark applications for a Tiger Stripes Logo Mark, which features 15 tiger stripes, each representing one of the major golf championship victories Tiger Woods has won over the course of his career, to date.
Respondent's Domain Names are confusingly similar to Complainant's Sun Day Red Marks.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by any of the Domain Names. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the Sun Day Red Marks, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the Sun Day Red Marks. Moreover, Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the Sun Day Red Marks within the Domain Names. Respondent has used the <sundayreduk.com> and <sundayredwebsite.com> domain names to host commercial websites impersonating Complainant. All the Domain Names other than <sundayredswitzerland.com>, which is being passively held, have been flagged by security vendors for malicious activity. At present, none of the Domain Names resolve to an active website.
Respondent registered the Domain Names in bad faith with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the Sun Day Red Marks. Respondent registered the Domain Names in November 2024, just months after Complainant's launch of the Sun Day Red brand in February 2024. By November, Complainant's Sun Day Red Marks had already achieved substantial attention on social media. All the Domain Names other than <sundayredswitzerland.com>, which is being passively held, have been flagged by security vendors for malicious activity. At present, none of the Domain Names resolve to an active website.
Because the Sun Day Red Marks are so obviously connected with Complainant and with Tiger Woods, and because the Domain Names plainly reference and evoke Complainant's Sun Day Red Marks, the registration and use of the Domain Names by Respondent, who has absolutely no connection with Complainant or Tiger Woods, strongly support a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.
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 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 SUNDAY RED and SUN DAY RED (stylized) marks through numerous registrations, including with the European Union (e.g., SUNDAY RED, Reg. No. EU018962399, registered on May 15, 2024, and SUN DAY RED (stylized), Reg. No. EU018975512, registered on May 15, 2024). Complainant also uses a Tiger Stripes Logo Mark.
It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition ("WIPO Overview 3.0 "), section 1.7.
The Panel finds each of Respondent's <sundayreduk.com>, <sundayreduae.com>, <sundayredswitzerland.com>, <sundayredsuomi.com>, <sundayrednorge.com>, <sundayrednederland.com>, <sundayredireland.com>, <sundayreddanmark.com>, <sundayredcanada.com>, <sundayredbelgium.com> and <sundayredwebsite.com> Domain Names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SUNDAY RED and SUN DAY RED (stylized) Marks, only differing from the text of the Marks by the omission of the spaces between the words and the addition of a geographic name or abbreviation or a generic word: "uk", "uae", "Switzerland", "Suomi", "Norge", "Nederland", "Ireland", "Danmark", "Canada", "Belgium" or "website". None of these differences is sufficient to distinguish any of the Domain Names from either of Complainant's Marks. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. 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 Names 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 Names or names corresponding to the Domain Names 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 Names, 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 Names, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
All of the Domain Names were registered on the same day, November 28, 2024, several months after Complainant registered its SUNDAY RED and SUN DAY RED (stylized) Marks in the EU and has shown that its Marks had received significant social media coverage. Next day, the <sundayreduk.com> and <sundayredwebsite.com> domain names resolved to commercial websites prominently displaying Complainant's SUN DAY RED (stylized) Mark; its Tiger Stripes Logo Mark; and images of Tiger Woods. The websites purported to offer Complainant's clothing for sale at discounted prices. All the Domain Names other than <sundayredswitzerland.com>, which is being passively held, have been flagged by the security vendor VirusTotal for malicious activity. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Sophos Limited v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 2102374 (Forum July 10, 2024).
At present, none of the Domain Names resolve to an active website.
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 Names 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 Names. See Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.
The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Names.
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 Names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:
(iv) by using the Domain Names, 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 SUNDAY RED and SUN DAY RED (stylized) Marks when Respondent registered the Domain Names and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites at "www.sundayreduk.com" and "www.sundayredwebsite.com" by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's Marks as to the source of Respondent's websites and of the goods promoted on those websites. This demonstrates registration and use of those domain names in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Further, Complainant has shown that all the Domain Names other than <sundayredswitzerland.com> were registered and used in bad faith because they were flagged by the security vendor VirusTotal for malicious activity. See Sophos Limited, supra.
Lastly, the <sundayredswitzerland.com> domain name does not appear to have been actively used. It was clearly registered in bad faith since it was registered on the same day as the other 10 Domain Names. As in the leading case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003, given the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, the Panel finds there is no conceivable active use that could be made of the <sundayredswitzerland.com> domain name that would not amount to an infringement of Complainant's rights in its Marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent's hitherto passive use of the <sundayredswitzerland.com> domain name demonstrates registration and use in bad faith.
Complainant has established this element.
DECISION
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 <sundayreduk.com>, <sundayreduae.com>, <sundayredswitzerland.com>, <sundayredsuomi.com>, <sundayrednorge.com>, <sundayrednederland.com>, <sundayredireland.com>, <sundayreddanmark.com>, <sundayredcanada.com>, <sundayredbelgium.com> and <sundayredwebsite.com> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Alan L. Limbury, Panelist
Dated: March 26, 2025
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page