DECISION

 

Perspective 361, LLC v. xiao qi

Claim Number: FA2508002173601

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Perspective 361, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Caitlin R. Byczko of Barnes & Thornburg LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is xiao qi ("Respondent"), Oklahoma, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cablebullet.shop>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 26, 2025; Forum received payment on August 26, 2025.

 

On August 26, 2025, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cablebullet.shop> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@cablebullet.shop. Also on August 27, 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 September 17, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

Complainant, Perspective 361, LLC, is a leading provider of railing systems as well as parts and kits for railing systems. Complainant operates under a DBA as Cable Bullet and has offered its railing system goods under such name throughout the United States. Since 2016, Complainant is the owner of a trademark registration in the United States for the CABLE BULLET mark in connection with various railing system goods.

 

The at-issue domain name is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's CABLE BULLET mark. Complainant owns and uses the domain name <cablebullet.com>, which was registered in 2015 and has been continuously maintained since that time. The at-issue domain name wholly contains the distinctive CABLE BULLET mark and merely includes the generic gTLD ".shop." Changes to Complainant's registered mark fail to sufficiently distinguish the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <cablebullet.shop> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not, and never has been, a licensee of Complainant, and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any version of Complainant's mark for any purpose. Rather, Respondent's use and display of Complainant's mark is merely to fraudulently impersonate Complainant to deceive the public into believing that Respondent is affiliated with Complainant. The website associated with <cablebullet.shop> clearly displays Complainant's CABLE BULLET marks, including its CB Logo. Panels have consistently held that such blatant unauthorized and infringing use of a complainant's trademarks is clear evidence that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name. Because Complainant has made a prima facie case in support of their allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name.

 

Respondent has registered and is using the <cablebullet.shop> domain name in bad faith. Respondent has used the at-issue domain name to both masquerade as Complainant and solicit business from Complainant's customers. Respondent's activities are a deliberate attempt to prey on Complainant's customers, intending to create a false sense of security, solely to trick them into purchasing goods they believe to be from Complainant, while those goods do not actually originate from Complainant. The website associated with the at-issue domain name prominently displays Complainant's marks, including the CB Logo mark in an attempt to pass itself off as, or otherwise impersonate Complainant. Such use is bad faith use. Respondent attempts to capitalize on Complainant's reputation in the railing system industry in an attempt to cloak itself in Complainant's identity and divert web traffic and sales away from Complainant is very concrete evidence of bad faith registration and use of the domain name. Respondent clearly had prior knowledge of Complainant's trademark rights when it registered <cablebullet.shop>. Respondent's use and registration of the domain name with actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's rights in Complainant's marks is evidence that Respondent registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent previously registered the domains <mytarp.shop>, <humanntop.shop>, <tadpolesandtiddlersf.shop>, <dukecannones.shop>, <pesches.shop> which were subject to UDRP transfer decisions adverse to Respondent.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the CABLE BULLET mark.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the CABLE BULLET trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name and its associated website to pass itself off as Complainant so as to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <cablebullet.shop> website where Respondent purports to offer CABLE BULLET related merchandize for sale using Complainant's trademark.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it registered its CABLE BULLET trademark with the USPTO. Complainant's trademark registration is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <cablebullet.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's CABLE BULLET trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the ".shop" top-level domain name. The slight differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that <cablebullet.shop> is confusingly similar to Complainant's CABLE BULLET trademark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA2 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023)("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of <cablebullet.shop>. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <cablebullet.shop> identifies the domain name's registrant as "xiao qi" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <cablebullet.shop> or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that offers merchandise related to Complainant's offering under the name "cablebullet.shop." Complainant's CABLE BULLET trademark is prominently displayed on Respondent's website. There, Respondent purports to offer and sell CABLE BULLET related products. Respondent thus attempts to use the at-issue domain name to pass off as being affiliated with Complainant so as to cause internet users to falsely believe that Respondent's domain name and its website are endorsed or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of <cablebullet.shop> to misdirect internet users to Respondent's website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).").

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <cablebullet.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it may be sponsored or endorsed by Complainant and there offers merchandise related to Complainant's trademark under the name "cablebullet.shop." Respondent's use of <cablebullet.shop> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <cablebullet.shop> domain name and Complainant's CABLE BULLET trademark. Respondent's use of <cablebullet.shop> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA1905001841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant"); see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, ee Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple adverse UDRP decisions where Respondent's subject domain name was ordered to be transferred from Respondent to the complainant. Respondent's cybersquatting history indicates a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA2001001878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the CABLE BULLET mark when it registered <cablebullet.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is obvious given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's trademark and logo and posing as if it is affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in CABLE BULLET further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <cablebullet.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 18, 2025