DECISION

 

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. wang jinglu

Claim Number: FA2509002174980

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is wang jinglu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <theequate.com>, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 3, 2025; Forum received payment on September 3, 2025.

 

On September 4, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theequate.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 September 5, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 25, 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@theequate.com. Also on September 5, 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 26, 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 Walmart is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores. Walmart was founded in 1962 in Rogers, Arkansas. Each week, approximately 240 million customers and members visit Complainant's more than 10,500 stores and numerous eCommerce websites in 20 countries. With fiscal year 2024 revenue of $648.1 billion, Complainant employs approximately 2.1 million associates worldwide; Complainant operates nearly 10,000 stores around the world, with over 4,000 stores in the United States.

 

Complainant has been using its EQUATE trademarks in United States commerce since at least as early as 1986, nearly 40 years. Complainant owns twenty-seven U.S. trademark registrations for EQUATE, covering a wide range of health, personal care, and over the counter products, the earliest of which registered in 1988, thirty-seven years prior to Respondent's at-issue domain name's domain registration.

 

The at-issue domain name fully incorporates and is identical to the EQUATE trademarks. Respondent's <theequate.com> website falsely presents itself as the official website for Complainant's EQUATE brand. It advertises Complainant's EQUATE products and is being used for what appears to be a fraudulent website that offers Complainant's products falsely associated with Complainant's EQUATE trademarks. The <theequate.com> website also displays images of Complainant's EQUATE products, featuring the EQUATE logo, all of which are protected by applicable trademark and copyright laws. The generic article "the" does not distinguish the at-issue domain name in any way from Complainant's marks. Furthermore, the at-issue domain name includes the entire mark, while adding the ".com" gTLD. "The addition of a top-level domain name generally fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)." At no time has Complainant authorized Respondent to use or register the domain name. Respondent's website advertises Complainant's EQUATE branded products and is being used for a fraudulent website that directs consumers to subscribe to the website with an email address. Respondent retains personal information of users presumably for commercial gain.

 

Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the domain name. The at-issue domain name incorporates the EQUATE trademarks without authorization, and the sole apparent use is to attract users searching for EQUATE goods in order to trick and divert them to purchase goods from Respondent's website. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. The <theequate.com> domain name points to a site that falsely presents itself as an official website associated with the EQUATE brand and products. Here, the Respondent is clearly using the EQUATE Trademarks on its website to attract Complainant's customers to purchase competing or counterfeit products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate and pass off as and sell the same types of products as a complainant does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Furthermore, Respondent is not and has not been commonly known by <theequate.com>, and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use any of its EQUATE Trademarks.

 

Respondent's bad faith acts. Respondent's registration and use of the domain name meets the bad faith element set forth in Section 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP. Specifically, Respondent uses <theequate.com> to intentionally attract internet users, for commercial gain, to the website by taking advantage of users searching for Complainant on the internet, creating a likelihood of confusion with the EQUATE trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of Respondent's website. Respondent's at-issue domain name was registered and used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is used to assist Respondent in passing off as Complainant to deceive internet users into falsely believing that the domain name and its referenced website are sponsored by Complainant. Respondent intentionally and willfully misrepresented to the Registrar that the registration of the domain name did not interfere with or infringe upon the rights of any third parties. This type of misrepresentation has been held to constitute bad faith. Respondent's use of false contact information on its website undermines the Respondent's claim to legitimate interests in the domain. There is a legal presumption of bad faith when Respondent reasonably should have been aware of Complainant's trademarks, actually or constructively. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the EQUATE trademark when Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. This is evident given the EQUATE brand's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the trademark laden domain name to pass itself off as Complainant and offer merchandise for sale similar to Complainant's offering. Respondent is likely profiting commercially by diverting internet users searching for Complainant's website, as these users "may find Respondent's website due to the confusingly similar domain name and become confused regarding Complainant's affiliation with, or sponsorship of, the domain name and featured content." Respondent is using <theequate.com> for commercial gain, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent's domain name hosts a website that displays advertisements and links to unrelated third-party commercial websites. Respondent presumably derives click-through revenue from the links on that website. Use of a disputed domain name to host links to unrelated commercial websites for commercial gain is evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent uses Complainant's EQUATE trademarks in the domain name to disrupt Complainant's business for Respondent's own commercial gain. By using the domain name, Respondent causes confusion among internet users seeking Complainant's services and diverts them to Respondent's website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the EQUATE 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 EQUATE trademark.

 

Respondent's uses the at-issue domain name to pass itself off as Complainant so as to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <theequate.com> website where, dressed as Complainant, Respondent purports to offer merchandise similar to Complainant's offering.

 

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 owns multiple USPTO registrations for its EQUATE trademark. Any of such registrations 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 <theequate.com> domain name consists of Complainant's EQUATE trademark, preceded by the article "the," and with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The 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 <theequate.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's EQUATE trademarks. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

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 <theequate.com>. 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 <theequate.com> ultimately identifies the domain name's registrant as "wang jinglu" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <theequate.com> 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 mimics Complainant's genuine website. Complainant's EQUATE trademark is prominently displayed on Respondent's <theequate.com> website along with copyrighted images and content apparently lifted from Complainant's genuine website. There, Respondent purports to promote products similar to those offered by Complainant. Thus, Respondent attempts to pass itself 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 <theequate.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter 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 Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appears like it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of <theequate.com> 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 <theequate.com> domain name and Complainant's EQUATE trademark. Respondent's use of <theequate.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, 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, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).")

 

Additionally, Respondent may also being using its <theequate.com> domain name and website to phish for personal information as Respondent's imposter website permits consumers to subscribe to the website using an email address. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to facilitate the collection of personal data is indicative of phishing and is further evidence of Respondent's bad faith. See Morgan Stanley v. Bruce Pu, FA 1764120 (Forum Feb. 2, 2018) ("[T]he screenshot of the resolving webpage allows users to input their name and email address, which Complainant claims Respondent uses that to fraudulently phish for information. Thus, the Panel agrees that Respondent phishes for information and finds that Respondent does so in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the EQUATE mark when it registered <theequate.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and given Respondent's unauthorized use of the domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's trademark and copyrighted images. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in EQUATE 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 <theequate.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 28, 2025