DECISION

 

enewton design, LLC v. Qi Yang

Claim Number: FA2602002203209

 

PARTIES

Complainant is enewton design, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by H. Artoush Ohanian, Texas, USA. Respondent is Qi Yang ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <enewtonpieces.com>, registered with Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 2, 2026; Forum received payment on February 2, 2026.

 

On February 4, 2026, Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <enewtonpieces.com> domain name is registered with Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. 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 10, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@enewtonpieces.com. Also on February 10, 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 March 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nick J. Gardner 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 disputed domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEEDING

According to the registrar verification the Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. registration agreement is in Chinese. Complainant has requested these proceedings take place in English. See WIPO Overview 3.1 at ¶4.5.1: "Language of Proceeding. Pursuant to paragraph 11 of the UDRP Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the default language of the proceeding is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the panel to determine otherwise. Noting the aim of conducting the proceedings with due expedition, paragraph 10 of the UDRP Rules vests a panel with authority to conduct the proceedings in a manner it considers appropriate while also ensuring both that the parties are treated with equality, and that each party is given a fair opportunity to present its case.

 

Against this background, panels have found that certain scenarios may warrant proceeding in a language other than that of the registration agreement. Such scenarios include (i) evidence showing that the respondent can understand the language of the complaint, (ii) the language/script of the domain name particularly where the same as that of the complainant's mark, (iii) any content on the webpage under the disputed domain name, (iv) prior cases involving the respondent in a particular language, (v) prior correspondence between the parties, (vi) potential unfairness or unwarranted delay in ordering the complainant to translate the complaint, (vii) evidence of other respondent-controlled domain names registered, used, or corresponding to a particular language, (viii) in cases involving multiple domain names, the use of a particular language agreement for some (but not all) of the disputed domain names, (ix) currencies accepted on the webpage under the disputed domain name, or (x) other indicia tending to show that it would not be unfair to proceed in a language other than that of the registration agreement.

 

The credibility of any submissions by the parties and in particular those of the respondent (or lack of reaction after having been given a fair chance to comment) are particularly relevant.

 

Where it appears the parties reasonably understand the nature of the proceedings, panels have also determined the language of the proceeding/decision taking account of the panel's ability to understand the language of both the complaint and the response such that each party may submit pleadings in a language with which it is familiar".

 

In the present case Respondent's website (see below) is in English which indicates Respondent understands that language. Further Respondent has not filed any Response or any other objection to Complainant's request. In all the circumstances the Panel will exercise its discretion to accede to Complainant's request and allow this proceeding to be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends as follows.

Element 1 — Confusing similarity

Complainant contends the domain <enewtonpieces.com> is confusingly similar to its ENEWTON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety. The addition of the generic word "pieces" does not eliminate the likelihood of confusion; pieces is a generic descriptor in the jewelry context and adds no distinguishing character.

 

Element 2 — No rights or legitimate interests

Complainant argues Respondent cannot satisfy any of the three safe harbours under Policy ¶ 4(c):

No bona fide offering (¶ 4(c)(i)): Respondent is selling what Complainant believes to be counterfeit jewelry, using Complainant's own product photographs without authorisation. Respondent is not licensed or authorised to sell genuine enewton design products.

Not commonly known by the name (¶ 4(c)(ii)): The domain was registered on December 24, 2025, long after Complainant's trademark registrations and first use. ENEWTON is an arbitrary term with no independent meaning. Respondent has no licence or affiliation with Complainant.

No legitimate noncommercial or fair use (¶ 4(c)(iii)): Respondent is using the domain to mislead consumers for commercial gain, with a website designed to appear as though it is affiliated with or operated by Complainant.

 

Element 3 — Registration and use in bad faith

Complainant relies primarily on Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) (intentional attraction for commercial gain by creating confusion as to source) and general bad faith under ¶4(a)(iii). The specific contentions are:

The website at <enewtonpieces.com> replicates Complainant's website, including its trademarks, product photographs, and web design, creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.

Upon information and belief, all products offered are counterfeit, and product images have been taken directly from Complainant's legitimate website without authorisation.

Respondent registered a domain incorporating the entirety of Complainant's ENEWTON mark with the evident purpose of capitalising on Complainant's brand recognition.

There is no conceivable good-faith use of the domain, given the wholesale reproduction of Complainant's intellectual property.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Based on the record before it Panel finds as follows.

Complainant designs and sells jewelry, including bracelets, necklaces, rings, anklets, chokers, lockets, earrings, and pendants, under the ENEWTON mark. Complainant has used the ENEWTON mark in commerce since January 31, 2012 and operates its primary retail website at <www.enewtondesign.com>.

 

Complainant holds multiple United States trademark registrations for the ENEWTON mark and associated marks, all in connection with jewelry in International Class 14. These include for example  USPTO Registration No. 7,344,609 for the word mark ENEWTON (the "ENEWTON mark") registered on April 2, 2024 claiming a first use in commerce of January 31, 2012,

 

The disputed domain name was registered on December 24, 2025. It resolves to a website ("Respondent's website") which reproduces Complainant's ENEWTON trademarks, uses product photographs taken directly from Complainant's own website, and mimics the overall look and feel of Complainant's website at <www.enewtondesign.com>. The website offers for sale what appear to be counterfeit enewton design jewelry products.

 

Respondent is not authorised, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to use the ENEWTON mark, to reproduce Complainant's product photographs, or to sell enewton design products.

 

Respondent has not responded to the Complaint and has offered no explanation for its registration and use of the disputed domain name.

 

DISCUSSION

¶ 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."

 

¶ 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 ¶¶ 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to ¶ 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

Complainant has established rights in the ENEWTON mark through its extensive use since 2012 and its trademark registrations. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the ENEWTO mark for the purposes of ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy – see Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) "Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of ¶ 4(a)(i) of the Policy." 

 

The disputed domain name <enewtonpieces.com> incorporates Complainant's entire ENEWTON mark followed by "pieces" which is a descriptive word apt to refer to jewelry items and creates a confusingly similar domain name.

 

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's ENEWTON mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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 addition of the generic top-level domain ".com" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such 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)).

 

Complainant has demonstrated that Respondent is not authorized to use the ENEWTON mark and has no relationship with Complainant. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Qi Yang" which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in "enewtonpieces" or any similar term. Accordingly, Complainant has established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. Respondent has failed to respond and therefore has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i). Offering counterfeit items cannot be a bona fide offering.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is identified as "Qi Yang" in the WHOIS information, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by "enewtonpieces" or any variation thereof. Respondent's unauthorized use of Complainant's mark supports a lack of rights or legitimate interests. See Solstice Marketing Corp. v. Marc Salkovitz d/b/a Image Media, LLC, FA 040087 (Forum Aug. 31, 2007) (respondent not commonly known by disputed domain name because respondent lacked authorization to use complainant's registered service mark).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). Respondent's use is clearly commercial.

 

Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

 

It is inconceivable that Respondent could have registered the disputed domain name without knowledge of Complainant and its ENEWTON mark.  The use of the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which purports to be that of Complainant also demonstrates bad faith use. Prior UDRP panels have consistently found that such activity evidences bad faith registration and use, See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 1930066 (Forum Feb. 15, 2021) ("[T]he Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS Mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant's products offered for sale, using Complainant's trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings.... Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). The fact that the products offered for sale are more likely than not counterfeit is a further indication of bad faith registration and use.

 

The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <enewtonpieces.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: March 12, 2026