DECISION

 

Authentic Brands Group, LLC v. Karen B / Authentic Brands / Karen B / Authentic Brands Group

Claim Number: FA2506002160674

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Authentic Brands Group, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Bridgette Fitzpatrick of Authentic Brands Group LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Karen B / Authentic Brands / Karen B / Authentic Brands Group ("Respondent"), Georgia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <authenticbranding.store>, <authenticbrandsdesign.store>, <authenticclothingbrandgroup.store>, and <authenticclothingsbrand.store>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 13, 2025; Forum received payment on June 13, 2025.

 

On June 13, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <authenticbranding.store>, <authenticbrandsdesign.store>, <authenticclothingbrandgroup.store>, and <authenticclothingsbrand.store> domain names are registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 June 16, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 7, 2025 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@authenticbranding.store, postmaster@authenticbrandsdesign.store, postmaster@authenticclothingbrandgroup.store, and postmaster@authenticclothingsbrand.store. Also on June 16, 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 registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

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

 

On July 8, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

In the instant proceedings, Complainant alleges that the entities controlling the disputed domain names are, in effect, under the common control of a single person and/or entity operating under multiple aliases. 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."

 

Complainant asserts that the disputed domain names are under common control because:

a) the domain names have nearly identical registrant information,

b) the domain names are committing the same employment

scam,

c) the domain names were registered with the same registrar around the same time,

d) the domain names share the same generic suffix ".store",

e) the domain names are operating on the same name servers, and

f) the domain names have a comparable arrangement, i.e., similar composition.

 

As a result of reviewing the Registrar verification, the timing of registration, and the same employment scam in association with the email addresses comprising the disputed domain names, the Panel agrees and finds that all four disputed domain names are commonly owned or controlled by a single Respondent operating under multiple aliases. For purposes of this proceeding, all such aliases shall collectively be referred to as Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant owns a global portfolio of iconic and world-renowned media, entertainment, sport, luxe, fashion, beauty and wellness, home, active and outdoor brands. Complainant has attained common law rights in the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark preceding the registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as they fully incorporate the AUTHENTIC BRANDS or AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP  marks and merely adds the descriptive terms and the ".store" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP  mark. Respondent has not employed the disputed domain names for any bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, Respondent has utilized the disputed domain names in connection with an email phishing and fraud scheme targeting individuals potentially interested in employment with Complainant. Respondent is not currently using the disputed domain names for an active website.

 

iii) Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent employs the disputed domain names to impersonate a Human Resource Manager of Complainant, soliciting personal information from individuals potentially interested in working for Complainant. Respondent was aware of Complainant and the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark at the time of registering the disputed domain names.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain names were registered on or between May 28 and June 3, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established common law rights in the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark prior to the registration of the disputed domain names.

 

3. Respondent has employed the disputed domain names to impersonate a Human Resource Manager of Complainant, with the intent to solicit personal information from individuals potentially interested in employment with Complainant.

 

4. The disputed domain names are not currently associated with any active website.

 

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 asserts common law rights in the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark. The Panel notes that to establish unregistered or common law trademark rights for purposes of the Policy, Complainant must demonstrate that its mark has become a distinctive identifier that consumers associate with Complainant's goods and/or services.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights in the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark preceding the registration of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based on the following:

 

(i) Complainant began using AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP as a business name and trademark in 2008 for branding services and acquired its first brand in 2011;

 

(ii) Complainant collaborates with strong brands, global partners, and a network of operators, distributors, and retailers to build long-term market value. Complainant's brands generate approximately $25 billion in global annual retail sales, with a retail presence in over 150 countries, including more than 9,400 stores and 356,000 points of sale. Complainant distributes a marketing and PR brand book to licensees and partners;

 

(iii) Complainant's portfolio now includes over 50 global brands, such as Reebok, Elvis Presley, Marilyn Monroe, David Beckham, and Forever 21. Complainant invests significantly in global marketing and enforces strict quality control over its brands while actively protecting its intellectual property by pursuing infringers;

 

(iv) Complainant's AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark is recognized as a lifestyle, entertainment, and digital platform symbolizing quality and reputation in branding services; and

 

(v) Previous panels have acknowledged Complainant's common law rights in the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP trademark.

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain names <authenticbranding.store>, <authenticbrandsdesign.store>, <authenticclothingbrandgroup.store>, and <authenticclothingsbrand.store> are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as they fully incorporate the AUTHENTIC BRANDS or AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP marks and merely add the descriptive terms such as "branding," "design," "clothing," and "clothings brand," along with the ".store" gTLD. The inclusion of generic or descriptive terms and gTLDs does not sufficiently differentiate a disputed domain name from the incorporated mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Vanguard Group Inc. v. Proven Fin. Solutions, FA 572937 (Forum Nov. 18, 2005) (finding that the addition of the term "advisors" and the ".com" gTLD to the complainant's mark did not negate a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). As the disputed domain names fully incorporate the main part of Complainant's AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark and merely append descriptive terms along with the ".store" gTLD, the Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to Complainant's AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark. The Panel notes that there is no evidence in the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names or that Complainant has granted any authorization for Respondent to use the AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark.

 

Complainant further asserts that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Although the disputed domain names do not host an active website, Respondent has exploited the domains to send emails impersonating a Human Resource Manager of Complainant for fraudulent purposes.

 

Using a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant as part of a phishing scheme is not recognized as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Abbvie, Inc. v. James Bulow, FA 1701075 (Forum Nov. 30, 2016) ("Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to pose as Complainant's CEO by means of email addresses at the confusingly similar domain name in an attempt to determine Complainant's ability to process a transfer. Using the domain name in this manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods and services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)").

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has received a host of inquiries and complaints from various individuals who were contacted by Respondent regarding alleged employment opportunities. Respondent is, in effect, operating an employment scam. Complainant provides copies of multiple communications it has received in connection with these fraudulent solicitations. The Panel observes that most of the names employed by Respondent to carry out this scheme are those of current or former employees of Complainant, thereby making the phishing emails more plausible. Respondent even sent employment contracts and W4 forms to certain individuals. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct is unlawful and malicious, and thus cannot qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Based on these findings, the Panel determines that Complainant has established a prima facie case regarding Respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. As Respondent has not submitted a response or otherwise rebutted the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith by impersonating a Human Resource Manager of Complainant for fraudulent purposes. Registering a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt business through phishing schemes constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Qatalyst Partners LP v. Devimore, FA 1393436 (Forum July 13, 2011) (holding that using a domain name for phishing purposes is evidence of bad faith).

 

As previously noted from the copies of emails submitted by Complainant, Respondent has been posing as a Talent Acquisition Specialist who is, in fact, an employee of Complainant, thereby making the emails appear highly credible to the average recipient. Respondent is clearly promoting a fictitious job opportunity with the ultimate aim of collecting personal information. The Panel finds that Respondent's phishing scheme disrupts Complainant's business and constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent was aware of Complainant's AUTHENTIC BRANDS GROUP mark when registering the disputed domain name. Impersonating Complainant in a phishing scheme can demonstrate actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights, supporting a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Spectrum Brands, Inc. v. Guo Li Bo, FA 1760233 (Forum Jan. 5, 2018) ("[T]he fact Respondent registered a domain name that looked identical to the SPECTRUM BRANDS mark and used it in a phishing scheme shows actual knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights at registration.").

 

Considering the widespread recognition of Complainant's mark and Respondent's deliberate misrepresentation as a Talent Acquisition Specialist who is, in fact, employed by Complainant, thereby enhancing the plausibility of the phishing emails, the Panel concludes that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights at the time of registration. This supports a finding of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <authenticbranding.store>, <authenticbrandsdesign.store>, <authenticclothingbrandgroup.store>, and <authenticclothingsbrand.store> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 8, 2025