DECISION

 

Granite Gear, LLC v. Lai Zhi Wei / Shen Zhen Shi He Fu Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si

Claim Number: FA2508002173045

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Granite Gear, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jennifer Mikulina of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Lai Zhi Wei / Shen Zhen Shi He Fu Ke Ji You Xian Gong Si ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <granitegear.asia>, registered with DNSPod, Inc.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 22, 2025; Forum received payment on August 25, 2025.

 

On August 25, 2025, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <granitegear.asia> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 August 27, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@granitegear.asia. Also on August 27, 2025, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On September 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English.

 

The Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

The disputed domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based company and is comprised of two words in English GRANITE + GEAR.

 

Complainant and their representative do not understand Chinese and since there has been no response to the complaint and Respondent has not objected that it could not read or understand the complaint, the Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1-Complainant owns the well-known and federally-registered GRANITE GEAR® mark as well as Complainant's common law rights.

2-Complainant has commercializes cutting-edge products to the outdoor marketplace for decades, such as backpacks, adventure travel gear.

3-Complainant also owns the domain name <granitegear.com>, where it sells its products and provides information regarding the company.

4-The disputed domain name was registered on March 21, 2025, more than ten years after the first trademark registration for GRANITE GEAR® was issued.

5-The disputed domain name <granitegear.asia> is nearly identical to Complainant's GRANITE GEAR® mark since it incorporates the trademark and merely adds the top level domain name ".asia".

6-The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name.

7-Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark or any domain name incorporating the mark.

8-Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.

9-Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.

10-Respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Granite Gear, LLC, manufactures and commercializes a variety of backpacks and accessories for outdoor, canoe, and tactical use and owns GRANITE GEAR trademarks at least from 2014 and has used the trademark for decades. Complainant uses the domain name <granitegear.com> to sell its products online. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on March 21, 2025.

 

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 GRANITE GEAR marks as well as on the domain name <granitegear.com>. (Exhibit E and G).

 

Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the GRANITE GEAR trademark with the USPTO and in other countries, the Panel finds Complainant has demonstrated rights in that mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Bittrex, Inc. v. Domain Privacy Services, FA 1786849 (Forum June 15, 2018) (finding Complainant has trademark rights in the BITTREX mark through registration of the mark with the EUIPO and the USPTO).

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GRANITE GEAR mark.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates Complainants' trademark GRANITE GEAR along with the gTLD ".asia".

 

The addition of gTLDs is not sufficient to diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark and prior Panels have stated that. See Trip Network Inc. d/b/a Cheap Tickets, Inc. v. Sigfredo Alviera, FA0702000914943 (Forum March 27, 2007) ("The Panel finds that the mere addition of the geographic term "cancun" does not overcome a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) and that the affixation of a gTLD to each domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis"). See also, e.g., American Eagle Outfitters, Inc. & Retail Royalty Co. v. Web Commerce Communications Ltd. / Client Care / Dina Bishop, FA 2053578 (Forum Aug. 29, 2023) (finding <americaneaglecanada.com> confusingly similar to AMERICAN EAGLE: "Here, the disputed domain names prominently start with and feature the identical AMERICAN EAGLE trademark and merely, and constantly, add a geographical indication related to countries all over the world, as well as the ".com" gTLD, and the ".co" ccTLD. Therefore, the Panel find that the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)"); Lady of Leisure Holdings Ltd. v. Client Care / Web Commerce Communications Ltd., FA 1992406 (Forum May 18, 2022) (finding <sweatybettycanada.com> confusingly similar to SWEATY BETTY); Chan Luu Inc. v. Byron Gossett, FA 1500891 (Forum June 25, 2013) (finding <chanluucanada.com> confusingly similar to CHAN LUU).

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to GRANITE GEAR mark, in which Complainant has rights, 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 Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <granitegear.asia> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the GRANITE GEAR mark. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)").

 

In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit A). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name.

 

Respondent has neither filed a response nor submitted evidence to prove that Respondent has any trademark rights in the <granitegear.asia> domain name.

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that the disputed domain name does not lead to an active site (Exhibit B) and Respondent has not submitted evidence to prove a bona fide offering of goods.

 

This Panel agrees with Complainant that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii).

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain registration by Respondent was done in March 2025 according to the information available on WHOIS (Exhibit A), it is more than 10 years after Complainant's trademark registration and use (Exhibit E and G).

 

The <granitegear.asia> domain name was registered by including the exact mark plus the gTLD ".asia".

 

The Panel finds bad faith at the moment of registration in these two circumstances.

 

In addition, the disputed domain's homepage does not resolve to any active content (Exhibit B), which is also a bad faith sign. See Robert Half Inc. v. Rose Diaz / Robert half staffing Claim Number: FA2408002111371, "Respondent's passive holding of <rosediazroberthalfstaffing.org> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See also CommScope, Inc. of North Carolina v. Zhuang Yan / WANGYONG, FA 1764026 (Forum Feb. 14, 2018) ("Respondent's domain names do not have resolving websites. Using a domain name to resolve to an inactive website (or no website at all) indicates bad faith registration and use").

 

Prior Panels have considered it reasonable to infer bad faith registration and use when facing conflicts involving inactive domain names without evidence of preparations for use. See Health Catalyst, Inc. v. Javid Henry FA2506002158701 (Forum July 1, 2025) ("Respondent registered a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. Respondent does not appear to have made any active use of the domain name, nor to have engaged in preparations for such use, and has failed to come forward with any explanation for the selection of the name or its intended use. Under the circumstances, the Panel considers it reasonable to infer that Respondent registered the domain name intending to use it in a manner calculated to create and exploit confusion with Complainant and its mark, likely either by using the domain name to attract or defraud Internet users seeking Complainant or by selling the domain name to Complainant or a competitor, and that Respondent is maintaining the domain name for that purpose.")  See, e.g., Blink Health Inc. v. Asif Khan / BlinkRXhealth, supra (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances).

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith 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 <granitegear.asia> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: September 25, 2025