DECISION

 

Duke Cannon Supply Company, LLC v. Liu Jinniu

Claim Number: FA2604002213631

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Duke Cannon Supply Company, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Nicholas Holmes of Gerben Perrott, PLLC, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Liu Jinniu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dukecannonus.com>, registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com.

 

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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 1, 2026; Forum received payment on April 1, 2026.

 

On April 2, 2026, PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dukecannonus.com> domain name is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com has verified that Respondent is bound by the PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 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 April 3, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 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@dukecannonus.com. Also on April 3, 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 24, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

Complainant, through its <dukecannon.com> website which was launched in 2010, offers for sale cosmetic and personal hygiene products such as bar soap, shampoo and other hair care items, skin lotion, shaving cream, and cosmetic wipes. It is the owner of numerous United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registrations for the DUKE CANNON mark including Reg. No. 6051070 dated May 12, 2020; Reg. No. 7680340 dated February 4, 2025; and Reg. No. 7812195 dated May 27, 2025.

 

The <dukecannonus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the DUKE CANNON mark as it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the geographically descriptive term "US" and the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name and its hosting of an impersonation website that purports to offer Complainant's goods for sale is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns registered trademark rights to its DUKE CANNON mark and the <dukecannonus.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it hosts a website that passes itself off as originating with Complainant; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website passes itself off as Complainant and deceives customers, for commercial gain, based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark.

 

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 asserts rights in its DUKE CANNON mark through its registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides screenshots from the USPTO database showing details of its asserted registrations and therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DUKE CANNON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the DUKE CANNON mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic or geographic term, along with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sep. 28, 2017) ("Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.") See also Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.") The <dukecannonus.com> domain name reflects the entirety of the DUKE CANNON mark and adds only the generic geographic term "US" and the ".com" TLD. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that 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 first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <dukecannonus.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the DUKE CANNON  mark. It has become well accepted that the information set out in a disputed domain name's WHOIS record may inform consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information lists Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.) In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See 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)"). The WHOIS information for the <dukecannonus.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant as "Liu Jinniu". Complainant further asserts that it "did not license the respondent to use complainant's mark". The Respondent has not filed a substantive Response in this case and so it does not dispute Complainant's assertions or supplement the available evidence. Therefore, the Panel finds no grounds upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it asserts that the <dukecannonus.com> domain name resolves to a website that fraudulently impersonates Complainant and deceives the public. Such activity has been held to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Subway IP LLC v. subways pvt ltd / business development, FA 2069330 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's Indian subsidiary...") In support of its contentions Complainant provides screenshots of the <dukecannonus.com> website as well as those from its own <dukecannon.com> site for comparison. The Panel notes that Respondent's site is a nearly identical copy of Complainant's site, prominently featuring the DUKE CANNON mark at the top, in the same graphic logo style as that used by Complainant. The marquis image on the page shows a sampling of Complainant's branded products. Further down the page appear more images of soap, deodorant, cologne, and other products bearing Complainant's mark in its graphic logo form, and below each appears one price in a strike-through grey font followed by a significantly lower price in a red font. Complainant also notes that these images have been copied from its own website and the Panel agrees based on the provided screenshots from the <dukecannon.com> site. Further, the footers of Respondent's site show the message "Copyright © 2026 DUKE CANNON" as well as images of various payment methods such as Visa, Mastercard, and PayPal. There does not appear to be any message stating that Respondent's site or products do not originate from Complainant and the site offers no other indication that it has no relationship with Complainant. Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent creates a false impression that its site is mimicking that operated by Complaint and that it is deceiving potential customers. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under either Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its DUKE CANNON mark. Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum, Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org) ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.") Complainant asserts that its mark has developed significant goodwill but it submits no supporting evidence beyond screenshots from its own <dukecannon.com> website.¹ However, Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark (including its logo and product images) is clear, as the <dukecannonus.com> website is a nearly identical copy of Complainant's own site. Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <dukecannonus.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant by confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant and is a genuine source for its products. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website.") The Panel references the screenshots of the site resolving from the <dukecannonus.com> domain name which are mentioned in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of Complainant's mark and logo as well as images of Complainant's products supposedly offered for sale at deeply discounted prices. This gives the clear impression that Respondent's website originates with Complainant and is improperly seeking commercial gain based on confusion with its mark. Based on a strong preponderance of the evidence presented in this case, the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the DUKE CANNON mark and is seeking to impersonate Complainant and perhaps sell counterfeit products or commit fraud by taking customers' payment and personal information but delivering no product at all. As such, the Panel finds firm ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and thus under ¶ 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 <dukecannonus.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: April 27, 2026