DECISION

 

Brownells, Inc. v. Colby Briyan

Claim Number: FA2509002175113

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Brownells, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chris Proskey of BROWN, WINICK, GRAVES, GROSS AND BASKERVILLE, P.L.C., Iowa, USA. Respondent is Colby Briyan ("Respondent"), Cameroon.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <brownellstore.com>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 4, 2025; Forum received payment on September 4, 2025.

 

On September 5, 2025, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <brownellstore.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 10, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 30, 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@brownellstore.com. Also on September 10, 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 formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On October 1, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Debrett G. Lyons 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 a formal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights in BROWNELLS and asserts that the domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant alleges that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.  

 

On September 10, 2025, Respondent wrote to Forum in response to its receipt of the Complaint but the Panel considers the single sentence reply to be incomprehensible and fails to qualify as an informal Response.  Nothing more need to be said of it.

 

FINDINGS

The findings relevant to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant sells firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories by reference to the trade mark, BROWNELLS, which is registered with the United States Patent & Trademark Office ("USPTO") as, inter alia, Reg. No. 1,895,766 from May 30, 1995;

2.       the disputed domain name was registered on December 24, 2024, and resolves to a website showing the BROWNELLS trademark and a logo-style trademark also registered to Complainant, purporting to sell the same firearms and accessories; and

3.       there is no relationship between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its 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, for example, WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; 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

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights (see, for example, Mothers Against Drunk Driving v. phix, FA 174052 (Forum Sept. 25, 2003). Complainant provides evidence of its registration of BROWNELLS with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and has thus established rights in that mark.

 

The Panel finds that the compared terms are confusingly similar since neither the gTLD, ".com", nor allision of the trademark with the descriptive word, "store", is of any added distinctive value (see, for example, Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs."); Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018): "Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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.")

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests (see, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, Case No. D2000 0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that Respondent has any trademark rights. The domain name resolves to a website which on its homepage reads: "Brownells Firearms: Your Best Destination for Buying Firearms and Binoculars Online" and, says Complainant, otherwise copies material from its own website.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been used to create a false and misleading impression that the resolving website is maintained by Complainant itself. Accordingly, there has been no bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

 

The Panel finds that a prima facie case has been made that Respondent lacks rights or a legitimate interest in the disputed domain name (see, for example, Morgan Stanley v. domain share, FA 2027193 (Forum Feb. 8, 2023): "The Domain Name has been used for competing financial services in a confusing manner referring to the Complainant and using its mark as a masthead and a picture of its corporate headquarters together with misleading text to suggest that the site attached to the Domain Name is an official site of the Complainant. Use of a domain name containing a third party mark for competing services in a confusing manner is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.").

 

The onus shifts to Respondent. Absent a Response that onus is not met and so the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and used in bad faith.

 

Further guidance on that requirement is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established. 

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name 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 the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to respondent's website 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 the respondent's website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.'

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls under paragraph 4(b)(iv) above. The Panel has already found the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark. The resolving website exists for commercial gain by selling or purporting to sell firearms.  In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website (see, for example, Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Webdesk Two, FA 1800636 (Forum Sept. 5, 2018) finding bad faith in registration of <spectrumpack.com> because "[u]se of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant's business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

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 <brownellstore.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: October 2, 2025