DECISION

 

Get Weird, LLC v. Fashions / Tyab Salim

Claim Number: FA2601002198782

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Get Weird, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Mills of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Fashions / Tyab Salim ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <asscofficialstore.net>, 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.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 8, 2026; Forum received payment on January 8, 2026.

 

On January 12, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <asscofficialstore.net> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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@asscofficialstore.net. 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 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 Get Weird, LLC (owns over 30 trademark registrations in the United States and around the world consisting of or incorporating the mark ASSC.

 

The Respondent's Domain Name Is Identical or Confusingly Similar to Trademarks in which Complainant Has Rights. The at-issue domain name fully incorporates Complainant's distinctive ASSC mark as the leading and dominant element, followed only by the terms "official" and "store" and the ".net" gTLD. Under well-settled UDRP precedent, the inclusion of a complainant's mark in its entirety is sufficient to establish confusing similarity, and the addition of descriptive or laudatory terms such as "official" and "store" does not dispel confusing similarity. Decisions consistently hold that the addition of generic or descriptive words and the applicable gTLD are insufficient to avoid a finding under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the At-Issue Domain Name. There is no evidence that Respondent owns any trademark or service mark rights or registrations that are identical, similar, or in any way related to the at-issue domain name. Complainant has not licensed, permitted, or authorized Respondent to use its ASSC mark. The website to which the at-issue domain name resolves impersonates Complainant by prominently using Complainant's ANTI SOCIAL SOCIAL CLUB mark and trade dress and by claiming to sell ASSC merchandise, creating a false impression of affiliation or official status. Such use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The use of the at-issue domain name to divert Internet users away from Complainant in favor of another website does not comport with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The use of the at-issue domain name to divert internet users away from Complainant in favor of another website does not comport with the requirements of Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Finally, Complainant's mark is so well-known that the only plausible inference that can be derived from Respondent's registration of the at-issue domain name is that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainants' marks. Complainant has therefore made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, which Respondent cannot rebut on these facts.

 

At-Issue Domain Name Was Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Registration of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of another's trademark is evidence of bad faith. Complainant's mark is well known and widely advertised in the United States and other countries around the world. The at-issue domain name incorporates the Complainant's ASSC mark in its entirety, and Respondent registered the at-issue domain name many years after Complainant first began using the ASSC mark, and many years after Complainant obtained registration for the ASSC mark in the U.S. and other countries around the world. It can, therefore, be inferred that Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainants' rights in the mark when registering the at-issue domain name. A domain name registrant represent and warrant to the domain name registrar that to the registrant's knowledge, "the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party." Further, the registrant is charged with the responsibility to "determine whether your domain name registration infringes or violates someone else's rights." In proceeding to register the at-issue domain name, Respondent has failed to discharge its contractual obligation to determine that the domain name does not infringe the rights of a third party. Further, the facts discussed above strongly suggest that Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to attract online users to its website for commercial gain by intentionally creating confusion with the ASSC mark such that online shoppers will assume Respondent's website and the products advertised thereon originate with or are affiliated or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name to host a website that is likely to confuse consumers into believing that it originates with Complainant for commercial gain is clear evidence of bad faith under UDRP Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Bad faith may be found where a Respondent's only apparent reason to use a Complainant's mark in a domain name was to benefit from the goodwill associated with the mark. Respondent has clearly tried to profit or otherwise obtain a benefit from the goodwill associated with Complainant's ASSC mark by incorporating "ASSC" into the at-issue domain name and by using the website corresponding to such domain name, to confuse consumers into believing that Respondent's website has an affiliation with or connection to Complainant and the ASSC mark. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's ASSC marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website. In conclusion, Respondent's bad-faith registration and use are shown by: (1) Complainant's prior adoption, registration, and use of the ASSC mark; (2) Respondent's subsequent registration of a domain that is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark; (3) Respondent's lack of any rights or legitimate interests; and (4) Respondent's active passing off for commercial gain via a site designed to appear "official." Viewed together, these facts establish bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the ASSC trademark.

 

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 ASSC trademark.

 

Respondent registered and uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that deceptively poses as if it were associated with Complainant and there purports to offer ASSC 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's USPTO registration, or any of its other trademark registrations worldwide for its ASSC trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO").")

 

Respondent's <asscofficialstore.net> domain name consists of Complainant's ASSC trademark followed by the suggestive terms "official" and "store" with all followed by the ".net" top level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish <asscofficialstore.net> from Complainant's ASSC mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <asscofficialstore.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ASSC trademark. 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."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).)

 

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 the at‑issue 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 at-issue domain name ultimately leads to discovering that the domain name's registrant is "Fashions Tyab Salim" and there is no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <asscofficialstore.net>. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <asscofficialstore.net> domain name to address a website appearing to look as if it is sponsored by Complainant. Notably, Respondent's <asscofficialstore.net> website prominently display Complainant's ANTI SOCIAL SOCIAL CLUB mark and related product images and claims to sell such products. Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name to pass off as Complainant indicates neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to 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").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <asscofficialstore.net>.

 

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 looking as if it is sponsored by Complainant and there offers products for sale under Complainant's ANTI SOCIAL SOCIAL CLUB brand. Respondent's use of <asscofficialstore.net> to pass itself off as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended by Respondent to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its at-issue domain name and associated website, and Complainant's ASSC trademark. Respondent's use of <asscofficialstore.net> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of such domain name 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the ASSC mark when it registered <asscofficialstore.net> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's ASSC mark and given Respondent's use of its <asscofficialstore.net> domain name to address websites that poses as if it is sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in ASSC further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 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 <asscofficialstore.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 4, 2026