DECISION

 

Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. v. ma yuwei / yang jiao / lai zhiting / David Sokolov

Claim Number: FA2601002198543

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Sumitomo Rubber Industries, Ltd. ("Complainant"), represented by Shaina M. Lefkowitz of K&L Gates LLP, Massachusetts, USA. Respondent is ma yuwei / yang jiao / lai zhiting / David Sokolov ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <clevelandsgolf.com>, <srixonsgolf.com>, <srixonco.com> and <xxio-golf.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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2026; Forum received payment on January 7, 2026.

 

On January 9, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <clevelandsgolf.com>, <srixonsgolf.com>, <srixonco.com> and <xxio-golf.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 January 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 2, 2026 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@clevelandsgolf.com, postmaster@srixonsgolf.com, postmaster@srixonco.com, and postmaster@xxio-golf.com. Also on January 13, 2026, 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 February 3, 2026, 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 any response from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the disputed domain names are controlled by the same person or entity.

 

The commonalities relied upon by Complainant in support of that allegation are that all four names are registered with the one Registrar; resolve to websites having identical layouts; two of the names,

<clevelandsgolf.com> and <srixonsgolf.com>, were registered the same day; and <srixonsgolf.com> redirects to the website associated with <srixonco.com>, although they have different owners.

 

The Panel considers these facts to be more than coincidental and raise a reasonable inference that the names are linked to one controlling mind.

 

Respondents had the opportunity to file submissions in Response but did not do so. Taking these considerations together, the Panel treats the named respondents as a single person or entity for the purposes of Rule 3 and herein refers to them together as "Respondent" (see, for example, AARP v. M P / Priyal Parikh / Amin Mokki / Jack Mrk / Sumi Sara, FA 2077700 (Forum Feb 8, 2024) permitting consolidation where five domain names followed similar naming patterns and resolved to similar impersonation and phishing sites; Eli Lilly and Company v. Private Registration, WhoisGuardService.com, D2016-1737 (WIPO Oct. 11, 2016) where consolidation found to be fair and equitable where "the respondent has the opportunity to make its submissions on the validity of the consolidation together with its substantive arguments. … The Respondent had the opportunity but did not respond to the Complaint.").

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it owns sporting goods companies which sell golf equipment, accessories and apparel under the names Cleveland Golf, Srixon, and XXIO. Complainant asserts trademark rights in those names and states that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to one or other of the trademarks.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names because it is not known by any of the domain names; has no trademark rights of its own; and uses the domain names to resolve to websites which deceive consumers into believing that Respondent is, or is affiliated with, Cleveland Golf, Srixon, and XXIO and which promote unauthorized sales of Cleveland Golf, Srixon, and XXIO products.

 

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

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

1.       Complainant owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 2,120,674, registered on December 16, 1997, for SRIXON;

2.       Complainant owns USPTO Reg. No. 7,376,659, registered on May 7, 2024, for XXIO PRIME;

3.       Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc. owns USPTO Reg. No. 2,070,054, registered on June 10, 1997, for CLEVELAND;

4.       the domain names were created in 2025, except for <xxio-golf.com>, registered on March 5, 2024; and

5.       the domain names resolve, directly or indirectly, to websites selling golfing equipment, using the trademarks and copying the look and feel of Complainant's own sites.

 

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. 

 

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 SRIXON and XXIO PRIME with the USPTO, a national trademark authority, and so has shown trademark rights.  

 

Something more must be said of the registration of XXIO PRIME. First, it is for a stylised mark. Panels have generally taken the view that a stylised mark can be treated as a "word mark" for the purposes of this aspect of the Policy if the textual element is readily perceived. That is the case here and this Panel will treat the mark as a word mark. Secondly, the relevant domain name, <xxio-golf.com>, was registered on March 5, 2024, before the trademark was entered on the register on May 7, 2024, but the Panel notes the filing date was March 1, 2023, and it is that date which is critical in terms of establishing priority.

 

The certificate of registration for the CLEVELAND mark presented in evidence shows the owner as Roger Cleveland Golf Company Inc., not Complainant. The Complaint merely states that "Cleveland Golf" is a sporting goods company owned by Complainant.  The evidence is inadequate, but the Panel has taken the step of checking USPTO online records to discover that Complainant is currently recorded as the owner of Reg. No. 2,070,054. It follows that Complainant has rights in CLEVELAND.

 

When it comes to comparison of the domain names with the trademarks, Complainant's submissions at times claim identity (none being so), near identity (not the language of the Policy), and cite cases of confusing similarity. The Panel makes its own assessment and finds the domain names confusing similar to the trademark.

 

In each case the gTLD can be ignored. The resulting comparisons are:

 

clevelandsgolf                                with                        CLEVELAND;

srixonsgolf and srixonco                with                        SRIXON; and

xxio-golf                                        with                        XXIO PRIME.

 

The domain names take the trademark at issue and add or delete the generic/descriptive words or terms, "prime", "golf" and "co"; and in two cases add the letter "s" in the possessive location. These alterations are insufficient to create points of distinction from the trademarks (see, for example, Rollerblade, Inc. v. McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000) finding that the gTLD can be disregarded for the purposes of comparison; 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 accordingly finds that paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied in spite of the haphazardly presented submissions.

 

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 names, 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, WIPO Case No. D2000‑0624).

 

There is no suggestion that Respondent might be commonly known by any of the disputed domain names, or that Respondent has any trademark rights of its own. The Panel accepts Complainant's assertion that Respondent has no authority to use the trademarks. The use of the domain names as described above is clearly not a bona fide offering of goods or services or fair use of the names. The Panel finds no evidence of rights or legitimate interest and a prima facie case has been made (see, for example, Caterpillar Inc. v. Carlos Remy, FA 1825645 (Forum Feb. 18, 2019) ("Use of a domain name to pass itself off as a complainant in order to sell competing goods is not a use indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).")).

 

The onus shifts to Respondent and in the absence of a Response, Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the domain names in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, including:

 

4(b)(iv)        by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The Panel has already found the terms to be confusingly similar. The resolving websites clearly exist for commercial gain. In terms of the Policy, the Panel finds that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's websites, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of those websites and the products promoted there (see, for example, Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) finding bad faith under 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.").

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <clevelandsgolf.com>, <srixonsgolf.com>, <srixonco.com> and <xxio-golf.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2026