DECISION

 

Stitch Fix, Inc. v. liu xue

Claim Number: FA2603002210366

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Stitch Fix, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jered E. Matthysse of Pirkey Barber PLLC, Texas, USA. Respondent is liu xue ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <market-spruce.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on March 13, 2026; Forum received payment on March 13, 2026.

 

On March 19, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <market-spruce.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 9, 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@market-spruce.com. Also on March 20, 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 April 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant operates as an online fashion retailer and personal shopping firm that integrates the benefits of a brick-and-mortar retail experience with contemporary technology. Complainant owns registrations for the MARKET & SPRUCE mark, including the registration with the USPTO (Reg. No. 4,749,762, registered June 2, 2015). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MARKET & SPRUCE mark, as it incorporates said mark in its entirety, merely substituting the ampersand with a hyphen between "MARKET" and "SPRUCE," and appending the gTLD (".com").  

 

ii) Respondent lacks any rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has not granted Respondent any license or authorization to use Complainant's mark in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, and the disputed domain name is not being utilized for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. Rather, Respondent impersonates Complainant to capitalize on Complainant's goodwill, thereby diverting potential customers to Respondent's site under the mistaken belief that such customers are visiting a site owned by or affiliated with Complainant. Furthermore, the products and services offered by Respondent at the disputed domain name appear to be a scam.  

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's MARKET & SPRUCE mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of said site, which constitutes evidence of bad faith. Prior panels have concluded that a respondent's use of a domain name to impersonate a complainant constitutes bad-faith registration and use. Finally, Respondent is employing a proxy service to conceal its identity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 16, 2025.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the MARKET & SPRUCE mark, supported by its USPTO registration (Reg. No. 4,749,762, registered June 2, 2015).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that mirrors Complainant's official commercial website. Respondent utilizes the resolving website to purportedly sell Complainant's products.

 

4. The products and services offered by Respondent at the disputed domain name appear to be a scam. For instance, while the home page of the disputed domain name lists the company's address as 450 Thompson Street, Long Beach, CA, the "About Us" page claims the location is in Los Angeles, CA. Additionally, this alleged California company lists its operating hours in Eastern Time, and the "About Us" page asserts that it was founded in 2021 while simultaneously offering items "ten years later."

 

5. The website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function whereby users may enter their personal and payment information.

 

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 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 asserts rights in the MARKET & SPRUCE mark, supported by its USPTO registration (Reg. No. 4,749,762, registered June 2, 2015). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating its registrations for the MARKET & SPRUCE mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the MARKET & SPRUCE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  

 

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <market-spruce.com> is confusingly similar to its MARKET & SPRUCE mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely substituting the ampersand with a hyphen between "MARKET" and "SPRUCE," and appending the gTLD (".com"). The Panel agrees and concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "liu xue" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring the MARKET & SPRUCE mark, utilizing the domain as part of a fraudulent scam.   The Panel observes that under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing off as a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See hipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) ("The resolving webpages between Complainant's and Respondent's websites are virtually the same. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).").  

 

The Panel specifically notes that Complainant has provided a screenshot of the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name, which prominently displays Complainant's MARKET & SPRUCE mark and product imagery, while purporting to offer competing goods. The home page of the disputed domain name lists the company's address as 450 Thompson Street, Long Beach, CA, whereas the "About Us" page claims the location is in Los Angeles, CA. Additionally, this alleged California company lists its operating hours in Eastern Time, and the "About Us" page asserts that it was founded in 2021 while simultaneously offering items "ten years later." The Panel further notes that the website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function whereby users may enter their personal and payment information. The Panel finds that Respondent's fraudulent use of the disputed domain name, including passing off, does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).  

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. All of these circumstances support a finding that a prima facie case has been made against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut the prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant or to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant.  

 

When a respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant or engage in fraudulent activities, such conduct may constitute bad faith disruption of a complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) ("finding bad faith under 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 to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant'").  

 

As previously noted, Complainant has provided a screenshot of the resolving webpage to which the disputed domain name directs, which prominently displays Complainant's MARKET & SPRUCE marks and product imagery, while purporting to offer competing goods. The Panel further notes that the website at the disputed domain name incorporates a checkout function whereby users may enter their personal and payment information.  

 

The Panel finds that such passing off and the harvesting of sensitive personal information constitute a disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(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 <market-spruce.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: April 11, 2026