DECISION

 

WalkingCo LLC v. Zhichao

Claim Number: FA2509002177264

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WalkingCo LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Catherine L. Rifai of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Zhichao ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on September 16, 2025; Forum received payment on September 16, 2025.

 

On September 17, 2025, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 22, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of October 14, 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@thewalkingcopany.com, postmaster@thewalkingcompay.com, postmaster@thewalkingcomany.com, and postmaster@thewalkingcompny.com. Also on September 22, 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 October 15, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

On October 30, 2025, due to exceptional circumstances, the time period within which the Panel shall be required to render its Decision was extended until November 3, 2025.

 

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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant offers various footwear products, and has for many years provided its products to a diverse range of consumers globally. Since at least 1993, Complainant has used the word mark THE WALKING COMPANY in commerce. Customers recognize the trademark as a distinguishing designation for the quality products Complainant offers, and Complainant enjoys substantial goodwill behind the trademark.

 

Besides the registered trademark THE WALKING COMPANY, Complainant owns and uses the domain name <thewalkingcompany.com>.

 

Complainant recently became aware of the four disputed domain names. There is a high likelihood that they are all under common control. Each is registered with the same Registrar, Dynadot Inc., and utilizes the same domain name privacy service provider, Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot. Three of the disputed domain names were created on the same day, July 6, 2025, and updated on the same day, July 28, 2025. The other disputed domain name <thewalkingcompay.com> was created in the same timeframe on July 5, 2025, and updated on August 10, 2025. Thus, Complainant suspects that the domain names were registered by a common owner using the same pattern of fraudulent behavior, or at least are operated under common control, and it is proper to address each of the disputed domain names in the same proceeding.

 

Respondent was initially hidden behind a domain privacy service provider. After this Complaint was served on the listed Registrar for the disputed domain, Respondent was revealed to be "Zhichao". Available records offer no further information concerning the disputed domain name owner. Respondent is using the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to Complainant's own website through affiliate links, which allow Respondent to earn a commission from all purchases made under this link via Complainant's legitimate affiliate program. In other words, Respondent is using the disputed domain names to attract and mislead consumers for its own profit.

 

When selecting the disputed domain names, Respondent intentionally selected names that were confusingly similar to the trademarks and mimicked Complainant's legitimate domain, only introducing slight typos into the disputed domain names.

 

In particular, disputed domain name No. 1 merely omits the "m" from "company," No. 2 omits the "n" from "company," No. 3 omits the "p" from "company," and No. 4 omits the "a" from "company." 

 

Persons who do business with Complainant are likely to be confused by the disputed domain names, believing that they are sponsored by, approved by, or affiliated with Complainant, when they are not.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests concerning the disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and has neither used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent registered the domain names without Complainant's knowledge or permission.

 

The disputed domain names resolve to Complainant's own website, and there is no evidence that Respondent has used, or has made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names for a legitimate purpose.  Respondent is trading on the goodwill associated with the Complainant's trademarks and creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names by Complainant.

 

Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names have been in bad faith under ICAAN Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Respondent has registered the disputed domain names in bad faith by diverting internet users to Complainant's website for affiliate revenue. The disputed domain names are a clear case of typosquatting.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 1,854,353 THE WALKING COMPANY (word), registered on September 13, 1994 for services in Intl Class 42;

No. 1,868,904 THE WALKING COMPANY (word), registered on December 20, 1994 for goods in Intl Class 25; and

No. 3,070,450 THE WALKING COMPANY (logo), registered on March 21, 2006 for services in Intl Class 35.

 

The disputed domain names <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> were registered on July 6, 2025. The disputed domain name <thewalkingcompay.com> was registered on July 1, 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

The Complainant claims rights to the THE WALKING COMPANY trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides copies of its USPTO registrations for the THE WALKING COMPANY trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 1,854,353, registered on September 13, 1994). Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the THE WALKING COMPANY trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that the domain names the <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> are confusingly similar to Complainant's THE WALKING COMPANY trademark as they are all just simply misspelled versions of the trademark THE WALKING COMPANY. A domain name may be found to be confusingly similar to a complainant's trademark, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), where the disputed domain name merely omits a letter from a mark when added to a gTLD. See Wells Fargo & Company v. VALERIE CARRINGTON, FA 1621718 (Forum July 2, 2015) (finding that the <wllsfago.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the WELLS FARGO mark as the domain name merely omits the "e" and "r" from the mark while adding the ".com" gTLD suffix.). In the present case, the Panel finds that all four disputed domain names have the same small grade of misspelling, indicating the Respondents goal to find the most common misspelling/s of the Complainant's trademark, in order to use that for bad faith purposes.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> domain names are all confusingly similar to Complainant's THE WALKING COMPANY trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and/or <thewalkingcompny.com> domain names as Respondent is not commonly known by any of the disputed domain names nor has Complainant authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in THE WALKING COMPANY trademark. When a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. 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)"). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrant as "Zhichao" and Complainant asserts there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use THE WALKING COMPANY trademark. Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domains name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Under Policy ¶ ¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), using a disputed domain name to redirect internet users does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Worldwide Corporation v. manmerlin manmerlin / Irene T Pickens, FA 2168698 (Forum August 28, 2025); see, also, Trip Advisor, LLC v. Above.com, FA 1623514 (Forum July 22, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering where respondent registered 20 domain names with slight misspellings of TRIP ADVISOR trademark and used the domain names to redirect users to complainant's own website under its affiliate program).

 

In addition, the Complainant argues that Respondent uses the disputed domain names to resolve to Complainant's own website, Respondent thereby trading on the goodwill associated with the Complainant's trademarks and creating a likelihood of confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names by Complainant.

 

Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> domain names in bad faith as Respondent's domain names are used to divert internet users to Complainant's website for affiliate revenue, and for the fact that all four disputed domain names are clear cases of typosquatting.

 

The Panel notes that typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of bad faith registration and use and disruption of a complainant's business. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v. Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith).

 

Typosquatting also indicates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its prior rights in the trademarks. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Respondent's domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters … Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inference, Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

It is obvious that all four disputed domain names are registered and used in bad faith, taking into consideration the fact that all four are clear misspellings of Complainant's distinctive trademark.

 

Based on all the above aspects and facts, the Panel determines the Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant's right in its trademark, which supports a finding of 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 <thewalkingcopany.com>, <thewalkingcompay.com>, <thewalkingcomany.com>, and <thewalkingcompny.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: November 3, 2025