DECISION

 

18th and Walnut LLC v. MARGONT CHARLES

Claim Number: FA2506002161345

 

PARTIES

Complainant is 18th and Walnut LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Chintan A. Desai of Lippes Mathias LLP, United States. Respondent is MARGONT CHARLES ("Respondent"), United States.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dagnedoveroutlet.shop>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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 June 17, 2025; Forum received payment on June 17, 2025.

 

On June 18, 2025, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by email to Forum that the <dagnedoveroutlet.shop> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 23, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 14, 2025 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@dagnedoveroutlet.shop. Also on June 23, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 15, 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" 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 designs and manufactures designer handbags and related products. Complainant has used the DAGNE DOVER mark in connection with such products since 2013. Complainant owns longstanding trademark registrations for DAGNE DOVER in standard character form in the United States and other jurisdictions around the world. Complainant asserts that DAGNE DOVER is a term adopted by Complainant that has no meaning other than as Complainant's trademark and business name.

 

The disputed domain name <dagnedoveroutlet.shop> was registered in March 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name has been used for a website entitled "DAGNE DOVER" that displayed Complainant's DAGNE DOVER mark and offered or purported to offer merchandise similar to that offered by Complainant, using product images identical to those displayed on Complainant's website and nearly identical product descriptions. The domain name currently resolves to an "under construction" page. Complainant alleges that Respondent is using the domain name and website to promote unauthorized products and in furtherance of a phishing scheme intended to solicit personal and credit card information from users. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <dagnedoveroutlet.shop> is confusingly similar to its DAGNE DOVER mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is 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 June 2, 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 <dagnedoveroutlet.shop> incorporates Complainant's registered DAGNE DOVER trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "outlet" and the ".shop" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., 18th & Walnut LLC v. ou oudi, FA 2149507 (Forum May 12, 2025) (finding <dagnedoveroff.shop> confusingly similar to DAGNE DOVER); Natural Life Collections, Inc. v. Paul Sorocenski, FA 2074983 (Forum Jan. 9, 2024) (finding <naturallifeoutlet.shop> confusingly similar to NATURAL LIFE). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark 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 name, 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 name incorporates Complainant's registered mark without authorization. Its sole apparent use has been for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products, and possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., 18th & Walnut LLC v. ou oudi, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Natural Life Collections, Inc. v. Paul Sorocenski, supra (same).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed 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 a privacy registration service and what appears to be Panel to be at least partially fictitious registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark, and has used it for a misleading website that attempted to pass off as Complainant to promote unauthorized and likely counterfeit or nonexistent products, and possibly for other fraudulent purposes. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., 18th & Walnut LLC v. ou oudi, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Natural Life Collections, Inc. v. Paul Sorocenski, 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 <dagnedoveroutlet.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: July 15, 2025