DECISION

 

Granite Gear, LLC v. Hassan Mehbob

Claim Number: FA2508002173070

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Granite Gear, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Jennifer M. Mikulina of McDermott Will & Schulte LLP, United States. Respondent is Hassan Mehbob ("Respondent"), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <granitegearline.co>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

David E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 24, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by email to Forum that the <granitegearline.co> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. The confirmation email identifies Respondent's location as Turkey and includes a telephone number with the prefix for Turkey; the street address and the remainder of the telephone number correspond to Miami, Florida. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@granitegearline.co. Also on August 27, 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 September 17, 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 has sold backpacks, travel gear, and related products under the GRANITE GEAR mark for more than thirty years. Complainant owns a longstanding United States trademark registration for GRANITE GEAR in standard character form, along with a registration for a design mark of which GRANITE GEAR is the textual component, and related registrations in other jurisdictions.

 

The disputed domain name <granitegearline.co> was registered in January 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. An attempt to access a website at the domain name results in a redirect loop error. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and is not licensed or otherwise authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <granitegearline.co> is confusingly similar to its GRANITE GEAR 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 <granitegearline.co> incorporates Complainant's registered GRANITE GEAR trademark, omitting the space and adding the generic term "line" and the ".co" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Granite Gear, LLC v. Earnest Simms, FA 2171411 (Forum Sept. 11, 2025) (finding <granitegear.co> confusingly similar to GRANITE GEAR); Dow Jones & Co., Inc. v. IT UNIT / REOTECH LLC / Javier Zelaya / MB Daily LLC / Karla Merida / [Name Redacted] / One West Realty Group LLC, FA 2137536 (Forum Mar. 1, 2025) (finding <wsjline.com> confusingly similar to WSJ); Granite Gear, LLC v. Will Cameron, FA 2073431 (Forum Jan. 11, 2024) (finding <granitegearreviews.com> confusingly similar to GRANITE GEAR); Univision Communications Inc. v. T Murray / HDTV LLC, FA 1543193 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (finding <univisionline.com> confusingly similar to UNIVISION). 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. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name, nor engaged in preparations for such use, suggesting that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See, e.g., Granite Gear, LLC v. Earnest Simms, supra (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances); Granite Gear, LLC v. Will Cameron, 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)(i) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that a domain name was acquired "primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of [Respondent's] documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name." Under paragraph 4(b)(iii), 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 fictitious or at least internally inconsistent underlying registration information to register a domain name incorporating Complainant's registered mark. There is no evidence that Respondent has made any active use of the domain name, nor engaged in preparations for such use, and Respondent 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., Bank of New York Mellon v. JULIAN AREY, FA 2173189 (Forum Sept. 16, 2025) (finding bad faith registration and use in similar circumstances); Granite Gear, LLC v. Earnest Simms, supra (same); Granite Gear, LLC v. Will Cameron, 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 <granitegearline.co> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: September 17, 2025