DECISION

 

Sunday Red, LLC v. Puscas Iulia

Claim Number: FA2509002177646

 

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sunday Red, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David J. Steele of Tucker Ellis, LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Puscas Iulia ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <sundayredsverige.com>, registered with Metaregistrar BV.

 

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 17, 2025; Forum received payment on September 17, 2025.

 

On September 19, 2025, Metaregistrar BV confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <sundayredsverige.com> domain name is registered with Metaregistrar BV and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Metaregistrar BV has verified that Respondent is bound by the Metaregistrar BV 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 23, 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@sundayredsverige.com. Also on September 23, 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 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 is a wholly owned subsidiary of TaylorMade, a leading manufacturer of golf equipment and accessories, known the world over for unrivaled quality and customer service. Founded in 1979, TaylorMade has a long-standing history of creating revolutionary products year after year and is one of the most valuable golf companies in the world.

 

In 2017 TaylorMade and Tiger Woods announced that they had entered into a multi-year golf equipment deal in which Tiger Woods would play golf using TaylorMade golf equipment. Their partnership continued with the development of a line of premium golf clubs in 2019. TaylorMade and Tiger Woods again strengthened their long-standing partnership with the launch of SUN DAY RED, a premium athletic luxury apparel brand, in February 2024.

 

Complainant's rights in the SUN DAY RED marks pre-date the registration and use of the subject domain name by several months.

 

Complainant owns numerous pending trademark applications and issued trademark registrations worldwide for the SUN DAY RED marks and the Tiger Stripes logo mark.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUN DAY RED marks. The at-issue domain name consists of Complainant's exact SUN DAY RED mark combined with a geographical term. Adding a geographical term, here "sverige" (Swedish for "Sweden"), to a complainant's mark is generally insufficient to create a distinction between the complainant's mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Adding a geographical term to a complainant's mark is generally insufficient to create a distinction between the complainant's mark and a at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Likewise, the addition of a generic top-level domain to the subject domain name is irrelevant to confusing similarity analysis.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Nothing in the WHOIS data for the domain name supports that Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Additionally, Complainant is not aware of Respondent being commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not licensed Respondent to use the SUN DAY RED marks, nor does Respondent have any legal relationship with Complainant that would entitle Respondent to use the SUN DAY RED marks. Respondent has no legitimate reason for using the SUN DAY RED marks within the at-issue domain name. Respondent is using the domain name to host a commercial website impersonating Complainant. The subject domain name has also been flagged by security vendors for malicious and suspicious activity. Panels have categorically held that such use can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Respondent thus cannot demonstrate that, "before any notice to respondent of the dispute," Respondent uses or prepares to use the domain name "in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services." Instead, Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to host a commercial website impersonating Complainant. Respondent's website prominently displays the SUN DAY RED marks and Tiger Stripes logo mark as well as Complainant's copyright-protected images, apparently taken from Complainant's website without authorization. Furthermore, Respondent's website purports to sell the same products as offered on Complainant's legitimate website, but at discounted pricing. Respondent's <sundayredsverige.com> website also provides account creation and login pages inviting users to input their personal information. Respondent appears to use geoblocking to evade detection by Complainant. Complainant accessed the website through ProxySite.com, an online tool that bypasses geoblocking restrictions. This use constitutes trademark infringement and passing off, trades on the goodwill of Complainant's SUN DAY RED marks, and infringes the copyrights in Complainant's images and content. The at-issue domain name was also flagged by security vendors as malicious and suspicious. Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the subject domain name. Nothing in the WHOIS data for the domain name supports that Respondent is commonly known by the subject domain name. Further, Complainant has not given Respondent permission to use the SUN DAY RED marks. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's marks supports a lack of rights and legitimate interests in the subject domain name. Additionally, Respondent has made a plainly commercial use of the subject domain name. The domain name is used to misdirect consumers to a commercial website that impersonates Complainant by prominently displaying the SUN DAY RED marks, Tiger Stripes logo mark, and copyright-protected images, to create the false impression that Respondent and its website are affiliated with Complainant. Moreover, Respondent's website purports to offer the same apparel goods for sale on Complainant's website, but at discounted pricing. Such unlawful use cannot amount to a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.

 

Respondent has registered and is using the at-issue domain name in bad faith. Respondent's use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark to impersonate Complainant and create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent's website, thereby taking advantage of the Complainant's mark for a respondent's commercial gain, supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Given Respondent's use of the SUN DAY RED  marks, Tiger Stripes Logo mark, and copyright-protected images on the commercial website at the subject domain name, there can be no doubt that Respondent knew of Complainant's trademark rights at the time of registration. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name just months after Complainant's launch of the SUN DAY RED brand. By then, Complainant's SUN DAY RED marks had already achieved substantial attention on social media. Respondent's registration, therefore, must have been done with explicit knowledge of the SUN DAY RED marks, evidencing Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's rights. This further supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). As mentioned, the at-issue domain name was flagged by security vendors for malicious and suspicious activity further evidencing Respondent's bad faith. There is no conceivable use of the subject domain name by Respondent that would be legitimate. Finally, the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is so obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection to the trademark owner supports a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the SUN DAY RED 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 SUN DAY RED trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to direct internet traffic to Respondent's <sundayredsverige.com> website where Respondent, posing as Complainant, purports to offer SUN DAY RED branded products for sale.

 

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 SUN DAY RED trademarks with the with multiple trademark registrars worldwide. Any of Complainant's trademark 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)).

 

The at-issue domain name contains Complainant's entire SUN DAY RED trademark less its domain name impermissible spaces, followed by the geographical term "sverige" (Swedish for "Sweden"), with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between the <sundayredsverige.com> domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's trademark under the Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <sundayredsverige.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SUN DAY RED mark. 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 <sundayredsverige.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 <sundayredsverige.com> identifies the domain name's registrant as "Puscas lulia" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence that tends to show that Respondent is commonly known by <sundayredsverige.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 poses as if affiliated with Complainant by displaying Complainant's trademarks as well as content that appears to be lifted from Complainant genuine website. There, Respondent purports to offer SUN DAY RED branded products for sale. Misdirecting internet users to Respondent's own website, as here, 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").

 

Likewise, the qualified third party "malicious" designation of Respondent's <sundayredsverige.com> website supports finding that there is a lack of any bona fide offering of goods or services related to the domain name. See GRF Services Limited v. Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, FA 817534 (Forum Dec. 20, 2018) (finding screenshots from third-party threat detection services indicating that the disputed domain name was malicious was sufficient evidence to show that the domain name was being used for some manner of nefarious activity rather than a bona fide offering of goods or services).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <sundayredsverige.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 as if it is sponsored or endorsed by Complainant and where Respondent purports to offer SUN DAY RED branded products for sale. Respondent's use of <sundayredsverige.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 <sundayredsverige.com>  domain name and Complainant's SUN DAY RED. Respondent's use of <sundayredsverige.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.").

 

Next, Respondent's imposter website contains a login page. The login page provides Respondent with a mechanism for deceptively collecting personal private information from internet users while posing as Complainant. Respondent's ability to use the at-issue domain name as part of a phishing scheme for deviously gathering private data additionally shows Respondent's bad faith regarding <sundayredsverige.com>. 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 SUN DAY RED marks when it registered <sundayredsverige.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's SUN DAY RED trademark and given Respondent's unauthorized use of the <sundayredsverige.com> domain name to address a website displaying Complainant's logo and SUN DAY RED trademarks and offering products under Complainant's SUN DAY RED brand. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in SUN DAY RED also demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 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 <sundayredsverige.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: October 17, 2025