DECISION

 

Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc. v. yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.

Claim Number: FA2602002206815

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Michael A. Chernoff of Seed Intellectual Property Law Group LLP, Washington, USA. Respondent is yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <watersparklingice.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, 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, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <watersparklingice.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation registration agreement, which is in Chinese, 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@watersparklingice.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 Alan L. Limbury 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 PROCEEDINGS

As noted, the Xin Net Technology Corporation registration agreement is in Chinese. Pursuant to Rule 11(a), the language of the proceeding in relation to the <watersparklingice.com> domain name shall be Chinese unless otherwise determined by the Panel, having regard to the circumstances of the proceeding.

 

Complainant requests that the proceeding be conducted in English, noting that the <watersparklingice.com> domain name is in English and resolves to an English language website. In the absence of any Response, these circumstances satisfy the Panel that Respondent is likely to be proficient in English and that there would be no undue prejudice to Respondent if English were the language of the proceeding.

 

Further, pursuant to Rule 11(a), the Panel determines that the language requirement has been satisfied through the Chinese and English language Written Notice of the Complaint and, absent a Response, determines that the proceedings may be conducted in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Since 1992 Complainant, Talking Rain Beverage Company, Inc., has sold beverages, primarily carbonated waters, under the SPARKLING ICE mark, which it has registered in many countries.

 

The <watersparklingice.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to trademarks in which Complainant has rights.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in the <watersparklingice.com> domain name. Respondent is not using and has not used the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, on information and belief, Respondent has used the domain name to impersonate Complainant and fraudulently advertise Complainant's products in order to deceive and solicit sales from Internet users. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the SPARKLING ICE trademark, or to register or use any domain name incorporating the same. On information and belief, Respondent is not commonly known as "Sparkling Ice," "Water Sparkling Ice," or any variant thereof. Further, to the best of Complainant's knowledge, Respondent has not applied for or obtained any state or federal trademark or service mark registration for the same. Respondent is not making legitimate noncommercial use of the domain name but rather is intentionally attracting Internet users and defrauding consumers by creating confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's site.

 

The <watersparklingice.com> domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Respondent is believed to be intentionally and knowingly capitalizing on the reputation of and goodwill toward Complainant's marks in order to deceive Internet users for commercial gain. Use of the domain name to impersonate Complainant and defraud consumers is clear evidence of bad faith

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to relief.

 

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 3.1 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 shown that it has rights in the mark SPARKLING ICE, including USPTO Registration No. 1,944,414, registered on December 26, 1995 for non-alcoholic soft drinks, in International Class 32.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <watersparklingice.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's SPARKLING ICE mark, only differing by the omission of the space between the words and the addition of the descriptive word "water", which are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark and instead evoke Complainant's business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

 

(ii)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)        Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert customers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

The <watersparklingice.com> domain name was registered on July 30, 2025, many years after the registration of Complainant's SPARKLING ICE mark. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainant's SPARKLING ICE mark and depicting images, copied from Complainant's website, of Complainant's products that are offered for sale. There is no disclaimer of any affiliation with Complainant. The checkout page seeks Internet users' personal information.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <watersparklingice.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      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.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainant, its SPARKLING ICE mark and its website at "www.sparklingice.com" when Respondent registered the <watersparklingice.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainant has established this element.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <watersparklingice.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: March 25, 2026