DECISION

 

Outdoor Research, LLC v. Gjata Stresemannstr

Claim Number: FA2506002161340

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Outdoor Research, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Kevin Costanza of Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is Gjata Stresemannstr ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <outdoorresearchnz.com>, registered with Paknic (Private) Limited.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 17, 2025. Forum received payment on June 17, 2025.

 

On June 18, 2025, Paknic (Private) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name is registered with Paknic (Private) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Paknic (Private) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Paknic (Private) 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 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@outdoorresearchnz.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 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Outdoor Research, LLC, provides clothing and outdoor recreation products such as sleeping packs and portable coolers. It has rights in the OUTDOOR RESEARCH mark, registered inter alia in the United States. It also has rights in the italicized "OR" mark. It operates the website at "www.outdoorresearch.com".  

 

Respondent's <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OUTDOOR RESEARCH mark.

 

Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known as "Outdoor Research New Zealand," "Outdoor Research NZ," or any variant thereof. To the best of Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has not applied for or obtained any state or federal trademark or service mark registration for the same. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the OUTDOOR RESEARCH trademark nor to register or use any domain name incorporating the same. Respondent uses the domain name to impersonate Complainant and fraudulently advertise Complainant's products in order to deceive Internet users. 

 

The <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith to defraud Internet users.

 

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 OUTDOOR RESEARCH mark, e.g., USPTO Reg. No. 3,573,552, registered on February 10, 2009 for clothing in International Class 25. 

 

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 3.0, ¶  1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's OUTDOOR RESEARCH mark, only differing by the addition of the geographic abbreviation "nz", which is insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the mark. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(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 <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name was registered on March 1, 2023, many years after the registration of Complainant's OUTDOOR RESEARCH mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's OR and OUTDOOR RESEARCH marks and images copied from Complainant's website and purporting to offer Complainant's OUTDOOR RESEARCH branded clothing for sale. Complainant has received messages from customers who have been scammed by Respondent, such as:

 

"I thought you should know that a fake Outdoor Research website in [sic] operating in New Zealand, and is scamming people who try to buy Outdoor Research clothing. The website comes up if you search for 'Outdoor Research NZ' under the address 'Outdoorresearchnz.com'. The scammers are based in China. I have reported this to the New Zealand authorities.

Unfortunately I was a victim of this site, but hope to get my money back through disputing the Visa transaction."

 

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 <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA1906001849706 (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(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) 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), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its OUTDOOR RESEARCH and OR marks and its "www.outdoorresearch.com" website when Respondent registered the <outdoorresearchnz.com> 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 mark as to the source of Respondent's website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Further, the Panel finds that Respondent is using the domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant for the purpose of fraudulently phishing for money.

 

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 <outdoorresearchnz.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: July 13, 2025