DECISION

 

Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Degros Orders

Claim Number: FA2602002207194

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Williams-Sonoma, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman of Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Degros Orders ("Respondent"), United Kingdom.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <williams-sonomainc.online> ('the Domain Name'), registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 25, 2026; Forum received payment on February 25, 2026.

 

On February 26, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <williams-sonomainc.online> Domain Name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 February 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 19, 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@williams-sonomainc.online. Also on February 27, 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 20, 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's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark WILLIAMS SONOMA registered in the USA for retail services since 2000. It uses the domain name <williams-sonomainc.com>.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's prior mark adding a hyphen, the generic term 'inc' and the gTLD .online none of which prevents confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark.

 

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has not been authorised by the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark.

 

The Domain Name carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant and there is no legitimate or bona fide use of it. The Respondent offers unknown files for download and the Complainant is worried about malware and phishing. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name which has been registered and used in opportunistic bad faith for likely fraudulent purposes in actual knowledge of the Complainant's rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is the owner of, inter alia, the mark WILLIAMS SONOMA registered in the USA for retail services since 2000. It uses the domain name williams-sonomainc.com.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2026 offers unknown files for download.

 

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 the Complainant's mark WILLIAMS SONOMA, (registered in 2000 in the USA for retail services), the generic term 'inc' and the gTLD .online. 

 

Previous panels have found confusing similarity when a respondent merely adds a generic term to a Complainant's mark. See PG&E Corp. v Anderson, D2000-1264 (WIPO Nov. 22, 2000) (finding that respondent does not by adding common descriptive or generic terms create new or different marks nor does it alter the underlying mark held by the Complainant).

 

Adding a hyphen does not prevent confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant's mark. See Health Devices Corp. v Aspen STC, FA 158254 (Forum July 1, 2003) ("the addition of punctuation marks such as hyphens is irrelevant in the determination of confusing similarity pursuant to Policy 4(a)(i)").

 

The gTLD .online does not serve to distinguish a domain name from a 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 to the Complainant's mark.

 

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 Domain Name carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant and appears to echo the Complainant's domain name <williams-sonomainc.com>. The Domain Name has been used to offer files for download of suspected malware, although there is no actual evidence of their contents. Using a confusingly similar domain name to display unrelated material evidences a lack of rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). See Haru Holding Corporation v. AI Matusita, FA 1679867 (Forum Aug. 11, 2016) (holding that "unrelated use [of a disputed domain name] by a respondent consists of neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use"); see also Seiko Kabushiki Kaisha v. CS into Tech, FA 198795 (Forum Dec. 6, 2003) ("Diverting customers, who are looking for products relating to the famous SEIKO mark, to a website unrelated to the mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor does it represent a noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii)."). 

 

The Respondent has not responded to this Complaint or provided any explanation to counter 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 legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Domain Name echoes the Complainant's url <williams-sonomainc.com>, showing the Respondent was aware of the Complainant, its rights, business and services. The Domain Name carries a high risk of affiliation with the Complainant. Using such a domain name to point to unrelated material appears to be in bad faith attracting Internet users looking for the Complainant for commercial gain and, thereby, disrupting the Complainant's business. See MySpace, Inc. v. Myspace Bot, FA 672161 (Forum May 19, 2006) (holding that the respondent registered and used the <myspacebot.com> domain name in bad faith by diverting Internet users seeking the complainant's website to its own website for commercial gain because the respondent likely profited from this diversion scheme).  

 

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.

 

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 <williams-sonomainc.online> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: March 20, 2026