DECISION

 

Tommy John, Inc. v. 哦 哦 / 喜 蛤

Claim Number: FA2601002200870

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tommy John, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Stacy J. Grossman of Law Office of Stacy J. Grossman PLLC dba SGIP, New York, USA. Respondent is 哦 哦 / 喜 蛤 ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <tommyjjohn.sbs> and <tommyjjohn.cyou> ('the Domain Names'), registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 21, 2026; Forum received payment on January 21, 2026.

 

On January 21, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tommyjjohn.sbs> and <tommyjjohn.cyou> 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 22, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@tommyjjohn.sbs and postmaster@tommyjjohn.cyou. Also on January 22, 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 12, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the Domain Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has alleged that the entities which control the Domain Names are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (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." The Complainant points out that the Domain Names were registered on the same day using the same registrar and resolve to the same content. Further the named respondents share the same phone number and a number of other common points of contact on their address details. No respondent has replied to refute any connection between the Domain Names. The panel finds that looking at the evidence on the balance of probabilities the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single respondent entity who is using multiple aliases and this Complaint can proceed as framed against all named respondents who will hereinafter be referred to as the 'Respondent'.

   

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TOMMY JOHN registered, inter alia, in the USA for clothing since 2013.

 

The Domain Names registered in 2025 are confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, merely adding an extra letter 'j' and the gTLDs .sbs or .cyou which do not distinguish the Domain Names from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names or either of them and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Names are both being used for a site using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's site to purport to offer the Complainant's goods. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a noncommercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names or either of them.

 

The Respondent registered both of the Domain Names in opportunistic bad faith to direct them to a site to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Names are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark TOMMY JOHN registered, inter alia, in the USA for clothing since 2013.

 

The Domain Names registered in 2025 are both being used for a site using the Complainant's mark in its logo form as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's site.

 

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 Domain Names consist of the Complainant's TOMMY JOHN mark (which is registered in the USA for clothing since 2013), the letter 'j' and the gTLDs .sbs or .cyou.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings such as the addition of a single letter does not distinguish a domain name from a complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.   See Bank of America Corporation v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1629452 (Forum Aug. 18, 2015) (finding that the <blankofamerica.com> domain name contains the entire BANK OF AMERICA mark merely adding the gTLD '.com' and the letter 'l'.'). Accordingly the panel holds that the addition of a letter 'j' to the Complainant's mark does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Names or either of them and the Complainant's mark.

 

The gTLDs .sbs and .cyou do not serve to distinguish the Domain Names or either of them from the Complainant's mark. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke, FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Names are both confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Names or either of them. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The web site attached to the Domain Names uses the Complainant's mark and logo as a masthead and copies material from the Complainant's web site impersonating the Complainant to purport to offer the Complainant's goods so that the Respondent's site appears to be an official site of the Complainant. The Panel finds this use is deceptive and passing off. As such it cannot amount to the bona fide offering of goods and services. See iFinex Inc. v Yuri Heifetz/Genie-Solution, FA 1789385 (Forum July 9, 2018) (holding that the respondent's mimicking the complainant's web site in order to cause existing or potential customers of the Complainant's to believe they are dealing with the complainant is prima facie evidence of the respondent's lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).   

 

The Respondent has not answered this Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Names or either of them and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In the opinion of the panelist the use made of the Domain Names in relation to the Respondent's site is deceptive and disruptive in that visitors to the site might reasonably believe they are connected to or approved by the Complainant as the site purports to be an official web site of the Complainant using the Complainant's mark and logo as a masthead and material copied from the Complainant's site. The use of the Complainant's logo and material from its site also shows that the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its rights and business.

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trade mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the web site likely to disrupt the business of the Complainant. See Allianz of AM. Corp v Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use where the respondent was diverting Internet users searching for the complainant to its own website).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Names were both registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <tommyjjohn.sbs> and <tommyjjohn.cyou> Domain Names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: February 12, 2026