DECISION
Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. v. Leo Wen / zhang san / tong guan
Claim Number: FA2602002204490
PARTIES
Complainant is Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chad Ray of MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C., Texas, USA. Respondents are Leo Wen / zhang san / tong guan ("Respondents"), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <bigtwistyarn.com>, <big-twist.com>, and <bigtwistco.com>, registered with Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, 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.
Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 9, 2026; Forum received payment on February 9, 2026.
On Feb 10, 2026; Feb 13, 2026, Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bigtwistyarn.com>, <big-twist.com>, and <bigtwistco.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. have verified that Respondents are bound by the Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. registration agreements and have 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 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 2026 by which Respondents could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registrations as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@bigtwistyarn.com, postmaster@big-twist.com, and postmaster@bigtwistco.com. Also on February 18, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondents of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondents via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondents' registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondents, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS
Complainant alleges that the entities which control the domain names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules of the 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."
Complainant alleges that each of the resolving websites for the disputed domain names presents similar information with nearly identical design elements. Complainant also alleges that the registrants have other similarities.
The Panel finds that Complainant has not presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder or that the Respondents are jointly controlled. Under Forum 's Supplemental Rule 4(c), the Panel has determined to proceed against zhang san and the associated <bigtwistyarn.com> domain name only. The other Respondents and associated domain names are dismissed from this arbitration procedure without prejudice. Hereinafter, zhang san shall be referred to as "Respondent."
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant owns the BIG TWIST mark and uses its mark for goods and services related to knitting, embroidery, and other craft projects.
The disputed domain name, <bigtwistyarn.com>, registered May 9, 2024, incorporates Complainant's entire BIG TWIST mark and differs only by the addition of the generic term "yarn" and the .com gTLD.
Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its BIG TWIST mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Respondent's website falsely presents itself as the official website for Complainant's BIG TWIST mark. It advertises Complainant's BIG TWIST products and includes direct links to purchase competing products on Amazon. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to divert users from Complainant's website and disrupt Complainant's business for Respondent's commercial gain. There is no legitimate reason for Respondent's registration and use of the domain name. Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
Complainant has many registrations of the BIG TWIST mark, including Registration No. 7295703 registered January 30, 2024, with the USPTO. Complainant's registration of the BIG TWIST mark with the United States establishes Complainant's rights in the mark, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant argues that Respondent's <bigtwistyarn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BIG TWIST mark because it incorporates that mark completely, while adding the generic term "yarn" and the .com gTLD. The addition of generic or descriptive words does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. 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."). Additionally, it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <bigtwistyarn.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the BIG TWIST mark 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 Complainant has made a prima facie case.
Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the BIG TWIST mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the BIG TWIST mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the BIG TWIST mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the BIG TWIST mark or the domain name incorporating the BIG TWIST mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name.
WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides:
While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP.
The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.
Complainant has proved this element.
Registration or Use in Bad Faith
Complaint argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's BIG TWIST mark to confuse internet users for commercial gain. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that falsely presents itself as an official or authorized site for Complainant's BIG TWIST products. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt a complainant's business for commercial gain can be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See PopSockets LLC v. san mao, FA 1740903 (Forum Aug. 31, 2017 ("Generally, there is no restriction on what constitutes a disrupting of a Complainant's business, and using a confusingly similar domain name to disrupt a complainant's business can evince bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)."). The incorporation of the BIG TWIST mark into the disputed domain name is evidence of Respondent's intent to lure Internet traffic to its commercial site by capitalizing on Complainant's mark and to profit by attracting Internet users to its website. See Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. v. Lewis, FA 1337417 (Forum Sept. 2, 2010) (finding similarity between the respondent's domain name and the complainant's mark demonstrated that the respondent intended to exploit the complainant's established reputation and goodwill).
Due to the notoriety of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its mark when Respondent registered the disputed domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S., FA 1890140 (Forum Apr. 24, 2020) ("[W]here a disputed domain name is so obviously connected with such a well-known name, product or service, its use by someone with no connection to the name, product or service indicates opportunistic bad faith"); See also Google LLC v. Noboru Maruyama/Personal, FA 1879162 (Forum Mar. 3, 2020) ("the registration and use of domain name that is confusingly similar to a trademark with which the respondent has no connection has frequently been held to be evidence of bad faith.").
The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain name, that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith.
Complainant has proved this element.
DECISION
Under paragraphs 3(c) and 4(c) of the Rules for the Uniform Domain Dispute Policy it is ORDERED that Respondents Leo Wen and tong guan and the associated domain names <big-twist.com> and <bigtwistco.com> are DISMISSED from this arbitration proceeding WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the <bigtwistyarn.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent, zhang san, to Complainant.
Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist
March 19, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page