DECISION

 

Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Lin Hai Hong

Claim Number: FA2601002202065

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Christine A. Filarski of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is Lin Hai Hong ("Respondent"), Unknown.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

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

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 27, 2026; Forum received payment on January 27, 2026.

 

On January 29, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <huskytoolss.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 February 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 23, 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@huskytoolss.com. Also, on February 2, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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 PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English.

 

The Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

The disputed domain name targets a trademark owned by a U.S. based company and is comprised of words in English.

 

In addition, the resulting webpage is entirely in English (Exhibit H).

 

Complainant and their representative do not understand Chinese and since there has been no response to the complaint and Respondent has not objected that it could not read or understand the complaint, the Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1- Complainant, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, is the world's largest home improvement specialty retailer and the fifth largest retailer in the United States.

2- Complainant owns the distinctive and well-known HUSKY trademark.

3- The trademark HUSKY and design mark featuring its distinctive husky dog head design was firstly used in 1924 in connection with hand tools, tool boxes, tool chests, tool organizers, and other home improvement products.

4- Complainant's website for its HUSKY brand is at <huskytools.com>, the domain name was registered in 1999.

5- The disputed domain name links directly to <https://husky-co.com> (Respondent's website), and it is designed to look like a website operated with the authority of the owner of the HUSKY marks.

6- The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's registered HUSKY marks and <huskytools.com> domain name; the domain name contains Complainant's registered HUSKY mark with the descriptive term "tools," and an additional "s" followed by ".com".

7- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

8- The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Home Depot Product Authority, LLC, owns HUSKY trademark and domain name with it, such as, <huskytools.com>. Respondent registered the disputed domain name <huskytoolss.com> on September 28, 2025. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

 

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 Panel finds that the disputed domain name <huskytoolss.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's HUSKY mark, in which Complainant has rights. (Exhibit D).

 

The disputed domain name <huskytoolss.com> incorporates Complainant's HUSKY mark and adds the generic term "tools" (with double "s") along with the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".COM".

 

The Panel finds that the term HUSKY is a fanciful and arbitrary term in relation to the products commercialized by Complainant and that it is clear that Respondent knew it belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a generic word which are related to the products identified by Complainant's trademark, and the domain name is almost identical (except for the double "s" to the domain name <huskytools.com> which belongs to Complainant. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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").

 

The Panel also points out that Complainant uses the domain name <huskytoolss.com> in a website that mimics Complainant's one and includes images, colors, the trademark and copyright which belong to Complainant (Exhibit H).

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar to HUSKY mark, in which Complainant has rights, under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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").

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <huskytoolss.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the HUSKY mark. 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)").

 

In addition, WHOIS information does not suggest that Respondent is named or commonly known by the disputed domain name (Exhibit B). This Panel finds that Respondent has never been commonly known by the domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

The evidence submitted by Complainant shows that Respondent's use of the <huskytoolss.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. (Exhibit H). Respondent's domain name links directly to <https://husky-co.com> and it includes Complainant's products, trademark, design and the same colors. 

 

Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the contrary. This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). In this point the Panel points out that the typo mistake on the disputed domain name (a double s) shows the lack of legitimate interested in it.

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The domain name's registration by Respondent was done after Complainant's domain name and trademarks had been registered. (Exhibit D and G).

 

The dispute domain name was registered in 2025 (Exhibit B).

 

The Panel also points out that the disputed domain name <huskytoolss.com>, includes Complainant's trademark along with a generic term which refers to Complainant's products, plus an additional "s". This last fact shows bad faith since it would be a typo mistake with respect to the domain name <huskytools.com> which belongs to Complainant (Exhibit G).

 

According to the evidence provided by Complainant (Exhibit H), which was not refuted by Respondent, the disputed domain name redirects to a webpage that includes Complainant's trademark, the design of the dog, and some protected copyright.

 

Thus, it is clear for this Panel that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's marks in mind. Registration was done in bad faith as well as the use of it.

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its products and has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).");

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <huskytoolss.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: March 2nd, 2026