DECISION

 

Clean Beauty for All, Inc. v. John Jay

Claim Number: FA2506002161081

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Clean Beauty for All, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Anna Kuhn of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is John Jay ("Respondent"), Ohio, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <puresaie.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2025; Forum received payment on June 16, 2025.

 

On June 17, 2025, GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <puresaie.com> domain name is registered with GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the GMO Internet Group, Inc. d/b/a Onamae.com 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 19, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 10, 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@puresaie.com. Also on June 19, 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 11, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since at least 2019 Complainant has offered a range of beauty products and related goods under the SAIE mark (in word and figurative forms). Complainant asserts rights in the SAIE mark through its registration with various national bodies including the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office ("UKIPO") (e.g. Reg. No. WO0000001783693, registered June 20, 2024). Respondent's <puresaie.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the SAIE mark in its entirely, merely adding the generic term "pure" and the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <puresaie.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the SAIE mark. Respondent does not use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather the Doman Name resolves to a website ("Respondent's Website") where Respondent purports to offer goods for sale that are in direct competition with Complainant's offerings, under the Complainant's SAIE mark. The Respondent's Website also makes reference to the Complainant and contains copyrighted material copied from Complainant's official website at www.saiehello.com.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as it disrupts Complainant's business by offering competing goods. Furthermore, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SAIE mark prior to registering the Domain Name, evidenced by the extensive number of references to the Complainant (and the use of Complainant's copyrighted material) on the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the SAIE mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SAIE mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 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 rights in the SAIE mark through its registration of the mark with the UKIPO (e.g. Reg. No. WO0000001783693, registered June 20, 2024).  Registration of a mark with the UKIPO is generally sufficient to demonstrate rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Citigroup Inc. v. Kevin Goodman, FA 1623939 (Forum July 11, 2015) (holding, "Complainant's ownership of UKIPO trademark registrations for the CITI trademark demonstrates its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). 

 

The Panel finds that the <puresaie.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SAIE mark because it wholly incorporates Complainant's SAIE mark and adds the generic term "pure" and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com."  Adding a generic term and a gTLD to a mark fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.  In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.  See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light.  If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.").  The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the SAIE mark.  Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant.  WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged.  See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS lists "John Jay" as registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name redirects to the Respondent's Website where Respondent purports to offers products in direct competition with Complainant by reference to Complainant's SAIE mark. The Respondent's Website also contains copyrighted images of Complainant's products as well as text copied from Complainant's official website at www.saiehello.com, indicating an attempt by Respondent to pass off as Complainant.  The use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect to a competing website does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).  See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that "use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant's business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").  See also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products.  The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that, at the time Respondent registered the Domain Name, May 21, 2025, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's SAIE mark since the Respondent's Website contains a large number of images and text copied from the Complainant's official website.  Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that wholly incorporates the SAIE mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website selling products that directly compete with products sold by Complainant (while making reference to the Complainant) other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the SAIE Mark.  In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith as Respondent used the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to Respondent's own website where Respondent, using the SAIE Mark, offers a variety of products in direct competition with Complainant. Using a confusingly similar domain name to divert Internet users to a respondent's competing website can show bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt the complainant's business by diverting Internet users from the complainant's website to the respondent's website where it offered competing printer products).  Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <puresaie.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: July 12, 2025