DECISION

 

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. Guo Xing

Claim Number: FA2602002206786

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Guo Xing ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ozarktrailco.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.

 

Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026.

 

On February 26, 2026, DNSPod, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ozarktrailco.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 March 2, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 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@ozarktrailco.com. Also on March 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 March 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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 THE PROCEEDING

The disputed domain name resolves to a website in English, including material copied from Complainant's English website. The Panel finds that the evidence in the record demonstrates that Respondent is conversant in English and therefore the Panel will conduct this proceeding in English. See Morgan Stanley v. Wei Yang, FA 1947212 (Forum Jun. 18, 2021) (conducting the proceedings in English was fair and just, particularly since the disputed domain name incorporated an English word and resolves to a website in English).

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1.       Respondent's <ozarktrailco.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL mark.

 

2.       Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name.

 

3.       Respondent registered and uses the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent did not file a Response.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a multinational retail corporation. Complainant holds registrations for its OZARK TRAIL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g. Reg. No. 1,922,173, registered on September 26, 1995).

 

Respondent registered the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name on August 14, 2025, and uses it to compete with Complainant.

 

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 Complainant has rights in the OZARK TRAIL mark through registration with the USPTO. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, "Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.").

 

Respondent's <ozarktrailco.com> domain name uses Complainant's OZARK TRAIL mark and simply adds "co" and a gTLD. These changes do not sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("slight differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") The Panel therefore finds that Respondent's <ozarktrailco.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL mark.

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), 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.").

 

Complainant contends that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <ozarktrailco.com> as Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in its OZARK TRAIL mark. The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Guo Xing". Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. Suzen Khan / Nancy Jain / Andrew Stanzy, FA 1741129 (Forum Aug. 16, 2017) (finding that respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names when the identifying information provided by WHOIS was unrelated to the domain names or respondent's use of the same); see also 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)").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent also fails to use the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as Respondent uses the domain name to compete with Complainant. Complainant provides screenshots showing that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant and to offer competing OZARK TRAIL branded goods, using Complainant's marks and images. The Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business).

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name in bad faith to compete with Complainant. Using a disputed domain name to attract Internet traffic to a site that passes off as complainant's evinces bad faith attraction for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.") Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant also provides evidence showing that Respondent has lost several previous UDRP cases where Respondent targeted Complainant, establishing a pattern of bad faith. See Provide Com., Inc. v. Jardimar Holdings Corp / Charingola, FA 1502077 (Forum June 27, 2013) ("[T]he existence of previous UDRP decisions where Respondent was found to have registered a domain name in bad faith reveals Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting behavior. The Panel construes Respondent's pattern of such behavior as evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith as well.")

 

The Panel also finds that Respondent registered the <ozarktrailco.com> domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the OZARK TRAIL mark, since Respondent uses Complainant's mark and images to pass off as and directly compete with Complainant, which constitutes further bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent "actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name").

 

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

 

 

 

Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist

Dated: March 25, 2026