DECISION

 

RH US, LLC v. Guo Xing

Claim Number: FA2601002200769

 

PARTIES

Complainant is RH US, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David A. Jackson of WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP, Arizona, USA. Respondent is Guo Xing ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <rh-outlets.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 20, 2026; Forum received payment on January 20, 2026.

 

On January 22, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <rh-outlets.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 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 11, 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@rh-outlets.com. Also on January 22, 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 12, 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 and originating company. The at-issue domain name is comprised of Complainant's English language related trademark and the descriptive English term "outlets." Neither the mark nor the domain name includes Chinese characters or syllabaries, indicating that its associated website is directed to an English-speaking public. The website addressed by the at-issue domain name is in English. Complainant does not understand Chinese and operates its business primarily in English. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainant 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 Complainant 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant RH US, LLC owns the rights to the RH mark in the United States and other jurisdictions worldwide. Complainant was founded in Eureka, California, in 1979. Over the past 46 years, RH has grown to 71 retail stores and 38 outlets throughout the United States, plus additional stores in Canada, United Kingdom and Europe. Complainant's channels of distribution include retail stores, outlets, catalogs, and the internet. Complainant is well known in the world of home furnishings and interior design with its galleries and products featured in publications including Architectural Digest, Forbes, House & Garden, and Bloomberg.

 

Complainant owns trademark registrations for the RH mark in the United States and jurisdictions worldwide. Complainant owns the exclusive right to use the RH mark in connection with, among other things, furniture, retail store services, online retail store services, and related goods and services.

 

The At-issue Domain Name is Identical and Confusingly Similar to the RH Mark in Which Complainant has Rights. The at-issue domain name incorporates the RH mark in its entirety. Based on this fact alone, the domain name is confusingly similar to the RH mark. The addition of a hyphen followed by a generic term does not dispel confusing similarity. Confusion is exacerbated here because Complainant operates over 40 outlet store locations, so the addition of the generic term "outlets" in the at-issue domain name is likely to increase confusion who may be looking for one of Complainant's genuine outlet store locations. The addition of a generic top-level domain (in this case, .com) is not relevant in determining whether a domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark. Accordingly, the at-issue domain name is identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's RH mark, and the addition of a hyphen and generic term that is related to the very business that Complainant is engaged in does nothing to dispel confusion or differentiate domain name.

 

Respondent Has No Rights or Legitimate Interests in the At-issue Domain Name. Respondent has not used the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, but instead uses the domain name to trade off the goodwill and recognition associated with the RH mark to drive internet traffic to Respondent's website and divert internet traffic away from Complainant. Respondent's website features many of Complainant's original photographs taken directly from the RH.com website. Using Complainant's own images to promote and sell competing products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent also refers to itself and its products as "RH" and "Restoration Hardware" multiple times on its website, further attempting to imitate RH through the unauthorized use of Complainant's RH mark with the intention of trying to deceive and confuse consumers. Indeed, on the "About Us" page of the website at the domain name, the Respondent claims to be RH/Restoration Hardware. Respondent registered the <rh-outlets.com> years after Complainant began using and filed for registration of the RH mark. Respondent is neither an authorized vendor nor a licensee of Complainant. Respondent has no business relationship with Complainant and does not have authorization to use the RH mark or to register domain names containing the RH mark. Respondent is using <rh-outlets.com> to direct consumers to its website for financial gain and advertises and sells (with links to Amazon.com) furniture products that directly compete with Complainant's business. This use of the at-issue domain name is not a bona fide offering of goods or services nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent, Guo Xing, is not commonly known as the domain name and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the RH mark within the at-issue domain name or in any other manner.

 

The At-issue Domain Name Has Been Registered and Is Being Used in Bad Faith. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's RH mark, which is evidence of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Indeed, the website associated with the at-issue domain name makes it evident that the Respondent is familiar with both Complainant and the RH mark because Respondent claims on the website that it is RH/Restoration Hardware, and the website uses Complainant's logos and pictures to advance its goal of masquerading as Complainant and deceiving consumers. Additionally, Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) also applies to Respondent as evidence of bad faith since the registration of a confusingly similar domain name that is obviously connected with a particular trademark owner by someone with no connection to the trademark owner supports a finding of bad faith. Here, the website located at the at-issue domain name prominently features Complainant's marks, logos, and photographs and was designed to give the impression that the website is the official website of Complainant or is otherwise associated with, sponsored by, or approved by Complainant, when that is not the case. Such conduct is an intentional attempt to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or as to the products displayed throughout Respondent's website. Such conduct demonstrates that Respondent has registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the RH mark and related marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and has not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Complainant had rights in its mark before Respondent registered the at-issue domain name.

 

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

 

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 based on 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 RH trademark is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Red Hat, Inc. v. Muhammad Shahzad, FA 1787738 (Forum June 19, 2018) ("Registration of a mark with multiple trademark agencies is sufficient to demonstrate rights to a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also, Google LLC v. Bhawana Chandel / Admission Virus, FA 1799694 (Forum Sep. 4, 2018) ("Complainant has rights in the GMAIL mark based upon its registration of the mark with numerous trademark agencies around the world."); see also, 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.").

 

Respondent's <rh-outlets.com> domain name contains Complainant's RH trademark followed by an insignificant hyphen and the descriptive term "outlets" with all followed by the confusingly similarity analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Respondent's domain name and Complainant's trademark are insufficient to distinguish <rh-outlets.com> from Complainant's RH mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <rh-outlets.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's RH 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), 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, 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 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 leads to the identification of the domain name's registrant as "Guo Xing" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence tending to prove that Respondent is commonly known by the <rh-outlets.com> domain name. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <rh-outlets.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 <rh-outlets.com> domain name is used to address a website displaying Complainant's RH trademark, logo and images. These images are owned by Complainant and displayed on its genuine website. Respondent thereby deceives internet users into believing that the <rh-outlets.com> website is authorized by Complainant. The website further contains hyperlinks labeled "Buy on Amazon" which directs site visitors to Amazon.com and products being sold at-least in part for the benefit of Respondent. Notably, 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 merchandise 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's lack rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <rh-outlets.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 Complainant. The website is adorned with Complainant's marks, logos, and photographs and deceptively appears as if it is Complainant's official website or is otherwise associated with Complainant. The website has links to a third party retailer, Amazon.com, and merchandise through which Respondent likely receives benefit via a sales commission or otherwise. Respondent's use of <rh-outlets.com> in this manner is disruptive to Complainant's business and is intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongly capitalize on the confusion it created between its <rh-outlets.com> domain name and Complainant's RH trademark. Respondent's use of <rh-outlets.com> thus demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and 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).").

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the RH mark when it registered <rh-outlets.com> as a domain name. Respondent's prior knowledge is apparent given the notoriety of Complainant's trademark; given Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website prominently displaying Complainant's trademark and posing as Complainant; and given Respondent claims on the <rh-outlets.com> website that it is RH/Restoration. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in RH 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 <rh-outlets.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2026