DECISION

 

Jacobs & Turner Limited v. Yiwei Ren

Claim Number: FA2511002187732

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Jacobs & Turner Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Robert White of Lexsynergy Limited, United Kingdom. Respondent is Yiwei Ren ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <trespass.site>, registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Richard Hill as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on November 10, 2025; Forum received payment on November 10, 2025.

 

On November 14, 2025, Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <trespass.site> domain name is registered with Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Atak Domain Bilgi Teknolojileri A.S. 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 November 14, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 4, 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@trespass.site. Also on November 14, 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 December 5, 2025, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Richard Hill 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 states that it is a leading privately owned specialist wholesaler and retailer of outdoor clothing, sport and camping equipment that trades under the name TRESPASS. Complainant was founded in 1938 and is headquartered in Glasgow in Scotland, United Kingdom. After initially producing workwear and uniforms, Complainant expanded to produce outerwear and then in the 1980s diversified into a full range of performance outdoor clothing and accessories and ski clothing sold through retail stores and later on e-commerce sites. Complainant has 2000 employees and operates over 270 stores worldwide with more than 180 in the United Kingdom and also runs dedicated e-commerce sites. Complainant's main website is <www.trespass.com>. Complainant uses various social media platforms to promote its brand and products and services under the TRESPASS mark. Complainant's Facebook page has over 41.3k followers; its Instagram account has over 30.4K followers; its X account has 12.8k followers; and its Tiktok account has attracted 51.4k likes. Complainant asserts rights in the mark TRESPASS through its registration in the United Kingdom in 1984. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world, including in China.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TRESPASS mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".site". Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services through the disputed domain name, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the only use of the disputed domain name is to offer it for sale at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale to the general public at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with constructive and/or actual knowledge of Complainant's mark. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use: it has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in eight prior UDRP proceedings. Furthermore, Respondent has registered over 9000 domains, a large portion of which make use of English words which correspond to the trademarks of brand owners in the United Kingdom and United States, a number of which operate in fashion retail sector, the same business sector as the Complainant. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant owns rights in the mark TRESPASS dating back to 1984 and uses it to market outdoor clothing, sport and camping equipment.

 

The disputed domain name was registered in 2025.

 

Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.

 

Respondent is offering the disputed domain name for sale for a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names.

 

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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's TRESPASS mark in its entirety and merely adds the ".site" generic top-level domain ("gTLD"). This does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Protection of Private Person, FA 1681432 (Forum Aug. 1, 2016) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs"); see also Abbott Labs v. Whois Svc., FA 1254682 (Forum May 14, 2009) ("the addition of a gTLD is irrelevant in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a registered mark"); see also Twitter, Inc. v. Jie, FA 1919786 (Forum Dec. 9, 2020) ("The Panel considers the disputed domain name [<twitter.luxe>] to be identical to Complainant's registered [TWITTER] trademark"). Thus the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Respondent has no license or authorization to use Complainant's mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name. 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). Here, the WHOIS information lists "Yiwei Ren" as registrant of record. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Respondent makes no use of the disputed domain name other than to offer to sell it for an amount in excess of out of pocket costs. This does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and it is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Sub-Zero, Inc. v. Viljami Ylönen / INTL Enterprises, FA 1965059 (Forum Nov. 5, 2021) ("Redirecting Internet users to a domain name sale page is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."); see also Sojag, Inc. v. Hong young jin, FA 1918082 (Forum Dec. 2, 2020) ("Complainant asserts that the domain name resolves to a website the sole function of which is to offer domain name for sale at a price greatly in excess of its costs to obtain and maintain the domain name. This employment is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services by means of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of it under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) such as would confirm in Respondent rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name as provided in those subsections of the Policy."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant's contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant's mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent's failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.

 

Indeed, as already noted, Respondent offers to sell the disputed domain name at a price in excess of out-of-pocket costs. This can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). See Staples, Inc. v. lin yanxiao, FA 1617686 (Forum June 4, 2015) ("Respondent's offering to sell the disputed domain name to a third party (in this case, the general public) supports a finding of bad faith registration and use."); see also Bank of Am. Corp. v. Nw. Free Cmty. Access, FA 180704 (Forum Sept. 30, 2003) ("Respondent's general offer of the disputed domain name registration for sale establishes that the domain name was registered in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)."); see also Am. Anti-Vivisection Soc'y v. "Infa dot Net" Web Serv., FA 95685 (Forum Nov. 6, 2000) (finding that "general offers to sell the domain name, even if no certain price is demanded, are evidence of bad faith"). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i).

 

Further, Complainant provides evidence showing that Respondent has been found to have registered and used domain names in bad faith in eight prior UDRP cases. This is sufficient to establish bad faith registration and used under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)); see also DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondent's previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). Thus the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

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 <trespass.site> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Richard Hill, Panelist

Dated: December 5, 2025