DECISION

 

Odele LLC v. Dillon Young

Claim Number: FA2602002206713

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Odele LLC ("Complainant"), represented by William Schultz of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. Respondent is Dillon Young ("Respondent"), District of Columbia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <odelbeauty.com> ('the Domain Name'), registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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 February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026.

 

On February 24, 2026, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <odelbeauty.com> Domain Name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@odelbeauty.com. Also on February 24, 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 March 17, 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. 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

The Complainant owns the trade mark ODELE registered in the USA for beauty products since 2020. It operates a web site at www.odelebeauty.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trade mark merely omitting a letter 'e' and adding the generic word 'beauty' and the gTLD .com which do not prevent said confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and is not authorised by the Complainant.

 

The web site connected with the Domain Name purports to sell the Complainant's products using the Complainant's trade mark spelled correctly as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site. The copying of the Complainant's material, references to the Complainant's products and mimicking of the Complainant's url www.odelebeauty.com shows the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its rights and business.

 

Since Internet users were duped into believing the site attached to the Domain Name was official this is not legitimate and is a fraud, as customers have told the Complainant that no goods have been received from the Respondent after orders have been placed on the Respondent's site and the address on the Respondent's web site is false. This is registration and use in bad faith confusing customers for commercial gain and disrupting the Complainant's business in full knowledge of the Complainant's rights.

 

The Domain Name is a typosquatting registration which is bad faith per se.

 

The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP for similar activity targeting a third-party beauty company showing a pattern of bad faith activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant owns the trade mark ODELE registered in the USA for beauty products since 2020. It operates a web site at www.odelebeauty.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 connects to a web site that purports to sell the Complainant's products using the Complainant's trade mark spelled correctly as a masthead and material taken from the Complainant's web site while using a false address. The Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP for similar activity targeting a third-party beauty company.

 

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 Name consists of a sign confusingly similar to the Complainant's ODELE mark (which is registered, inter alia in USA for beauty products since 2020) merely omitting the letter 'e' and adding the generic word 'beauty' and the gTLD .com.

 

The Panel agrees that the misspelling of the Complainant's mark, specifically, the omission of the letter 'e' does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v Zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug 4, 2015).

 

The addition of a generic word to a mark in a domain name does not serve to prevent the confusingly similarity between that mark and that domain name. See Abbott Laboratories v Miles White, FA 1646590 (Forum Dec. 10, 2015) (holding that the addition of generic terms do not adequately distinguish a disputed domain name from complainant's mark under Policy 4(a)(i)). Accordingly, the Panel agrees that the addition of the generic word 'beauty' to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy.

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name 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 Name is confusingly similar for the purpose of the Policy to a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

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, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. 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 Name features the Complainant's mark spelt correctly and in the Complainant's official font as a masthead amd material taken from the Complainant's web site to purport to sell the Complainant's products. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The site uses a false address and appears to be phishing. Under Policy 4(c)(i) and (iii), the use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is not considered a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See Enterprise Holdings, Inc. v. I S / Internet Consulting Services Inc., FA 1785242 (Forum June 5, 2018) ("On its face, the use of a domain name that is confusingly similar to the mark of another in order to facilitate a phishing scheme cannot be described as either a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶4(c)(iii).").

 

Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

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

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights. See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Respondent's domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

The use of the Complainant's mark in its official font, references to the Complainant's products, material taken from the Complainant's web site and the mimicking of the Complainant's url www.odelebeauty.com shows the Respondent is aware of the Complainant and its right, business and products.

 

Respondent has used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's ODELE mark known for beauty products to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain. (See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs, FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

Respondent uses a false address on the web site and uses the Domain Name to engage in apparent phishing. The use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of a phishing scheme is considered evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Klabzuba Oil & Gas, Inc v LAKHPAT SINGH BHANDARI, FA 1625750 (Forum July 17, 2015).

 

Further, the Respondent has been the subject of another adverse decision under the UDRP evidencing a pattern of bad faith activity. See Webster Financial Corporation and Webster Bank, National Association v. Above.com Domain Privacy, FA 1464477 (Forum Nov. 30, 2012) (finding where the record reflected that the respondent had been a respondent in other UDRP proceedings in which it was ordered to transfer disputed domain names to various complainants established a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names and stood as evidence of bad faith in the registration and use of domain names under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)).

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under Paragraphs 4(b)(ii),(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 <odelbeauty.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 17, 2026