DECISION

 

DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and American Sports Licensing, LLC v. Guo Qing Bing

Claim Number: FA2601002199470

 

PARTIES

Complainant is DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. and American Sports Licensing, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Johanna Schmitt of Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is Guo Qing Bing ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <caliaofficial.com>, registered with DNSPod, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 13, 2026; Forum received payment on January 13, 2026.

 

On January 14, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <caliaofficial.com> domain name is registered with DNSPod, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. DNSPod, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the DNSPod, 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 16, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 5, 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@caliaofficial.com. Also on January 16, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On February 6, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based company. The at-issue domain name is comprised of Complainant's English language trademark and the generic English term "official." Furthermore, the website addressed by the at-issue domain name is entirely in English. Complainants and their representative do not understand Chinese. Consequently since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainants would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainants would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In this proceeding there are two Complainants, DICK'S Sporting Goods and American Sports Licensing, LLC. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."

 

The record shows that Complainant American Sports Licensing, LLC., the USPTO registered owner of the at-issue CALIA trademark, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Complainant DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. Additionally, there is no objection to the named Complainants proceeding together as if one. The Panel therefore finds that the two nominal Complainants have a sufficient nexus to each other and to the matters complained of such that they can be treated as if a single entity. See Tasty Baking, Co. & Tastykake Invs., Inc. v. Quality Hosting, FA 208854 (Forum Dec. 28, 2003) (treating the two complainants as a single entity where both parties held rights in trademarks contained within the disputed domain names).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Founded in 1948, Complainant DICK'S Sporting Goods, Inc. is a leading omnichannel sporting goods retailer offering an extensive assortment of authentic, high quality sports equipment, apparel, footwear and accessories. It operates a family of sporting goods stores, including over 700 retail stores throughout the United States under the name DICK'S SPORTING GOODS. Complainants also offers goods through a family of websites, including the DICK'S SPORTING GOODS-branded website at the following domain name: <dickssportinggoods.com>.

 

In addition to the extensive common law rights developed through continuous use of its CALIA mark, Complainants effectively owns the United States trademark registrations CALIA for use in connection with activewear, water bottles, footwear, yoga mats, duffle bags, and other goods

 

Respondent's <caliaofficial.com> is identical or confusingly similar to the CALIA mark. The entirety of the CALIA mark is incorporated within the <caliaofficial.com> domain name with the mere addition of the generic term "official" following the mark. Further, the addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" to the <caliaofficial.com> domain name is irrelevant in determining its similarity to Complainants' CALIA mark.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainants. Respondent has never requested or received any authorization, permission or license from Complainants to use the CALIA mark in any way. There is no evidence in Respondent's WHOIS information for the at-issue domain or otherwise to suggest that Respondent is known by the name CALIA or has any trademark rights in the CALIA mark, nor could there be. Respondent has not used the domain name in good faith and in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or made legitimate non-commercial fair use. Instead, Respondent is willfully using the domain name to capitalize on Complainant's goodwill associated with the CALIA mark and mislead consumers into believing Respondent's <caliaofficial.com> website is an authentic CALIA website. The website facilitates a pop-up that provides a link to "Buy on Amazon," which leads to Amazon search results for other brands of activewear. On the <caliaofficial.com> website, Respondent also displays photographs depicting Complainant's CALIA products. These photographs are owned by Complainants and displayed on <dickssportinggoods.com>. Respondent's conduct does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Because Complainants has made a prima facie case in support of its allegations, the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does in fact have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Moreover, Respondent must show it has rights or a legitimate interest in the domain name at issue by "concrete evidence."

 

Respondent has both registered and used the <caliaofficial.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, with knowledge of Complainants' rights in the CALIA mark. The domain name is used to mislead consumers into believing the <caliaofficial.com> website is a genuine CALIA website. Such use can only be construed as bad faith, and, based on that use; Respondent's registration can only be inferred to have been made to facilitate such bad faith use. In addition, Respondent is deemed to have constructive knowledge of Complainants' rights in the CALIA mark pursuant to U.S. federal trademark registrations for the CALIA mark. Respondent also has an established pattern of registering domain names that incorporate well-known trademarks and using such domain names to mimic and purport to impersonate complainants. Particularly when taken in totality, the facts surrounding Respondent's use and registration of <caliaofficial.com> shows that Respondent has both registered and used said disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainants have trademark rights in CALIA.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainants and had not been authorized to use Complainants' trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainants' acquired rights in the CALIA trademark.

 

Respondent's uses the at-issue domain name and its associated website to pass itself off as Complainants and to provide product associated links to a third party retailer through which Respondent likely benefits.

 

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 is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainants have rights.

 

Any of Complainants' USPTO registrations for CALIA is sufficient to established Complainants' rights in such mark under Policy 4(a)(i). See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

The at-issue domain name consists of Complainants' CALIA trademark followed the generic term "official," with all followed by the ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's <caliaofficial.com> domain name and Complainants' trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from the trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <caliaofficial.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainants' CALIA 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), Complainants 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, Complainants' prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainants' 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 interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name identifies the domain name's registrant as "Guo Qing Bing" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <caliaofficial.com>domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <caliaofficial.com> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin  ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) ("The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as 'Ilyas Aslan' and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.").

 

Respondent's <caliaofficial.com> domain name is used address a website bannered with Complainant's CALIA trademark and claims to be the owner of such mark. On the <caliaofficial.com> website, Respondent displays photographs depicting Complainants' CALIA products. These photographs are owned by Complainants and displayed on <dickssportinggoods.com>. Respondent deceives internet users into believing that the <caliaofficial.com> website and its advertised CALIA products are authorized by Complainants. The website further contains hyperlinks labeled "Buy on Amazon" which lead site visitors to Amazon.com and products related to multiple brands of activewear. Respondent likely receives a commission or other benefit when internet users clicking on a "Buy On Amazon" link are referred to Amazon.com and view or purchase activewear apparel offered on the returned webpages. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in this manner is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business).

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <caliaofficial.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 like it is sponsored by Complainants. The website displays links to a third party retailer, Amazon.com, through which Respondent likely receives benefit via a sales commission or otherwise. Respondent's use of <caliaofficial.com> in this manner is disruptive to Complainants' business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainants to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <caliaofficial.com> domain name and Complainants' CALIA trademark. Respondent's use of <caliaofficial.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."); 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");see also, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").

 

Next, Respondent has suffered multiple prior adverse UDRP decisions as a respondent including decisions in proceedings brought by Complainants. Respondent's cybersquatting history reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Tommy John, Inc. v. Carolina Rodrigues / Fundacion Comercio Electronico, FA 1878688 (Forum Feb. 6, 2020) (finding bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii) where the respondent had been subject to numerous UDRP proceedings where panels ordered the transfer of disputed domain names containing the trademarks of the complainants).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainants and their rights in the CALIA mark when it registered <caliaofficial.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainants' trademark and given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website prominently displaying Complainants' trademark, promoting Complainants' products, and posing as Complainants. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainants and their rights in CALIA further 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 <caliaofficial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 6, 2026