DECISION

 

Walmart Apollo, LLC v. Ali Bhatti

Claim Number: FA2604002214201

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Walmart Apollo, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Fatima Y. Kassem and Amy C. Leshan of Brooks Kushman P.C., Michigan, USA. Respondent is Ali Bhatti ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <theozarktrailco.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 3, 2026; Forum received payment on April 3, 2026.

 

On April 7, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <theozarktrailco.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 April 7, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of April 27, 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@theozarktrailco.com. Also on April 7, 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 28, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 alleges:

 

That Complainant, a Delaware limited liability company headquartered in Bentonville, Arkansas, is a multinational retail corporation operating a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores, and grocery stores under the WALMART brand, and has continuously used its OZARK TRAIL trademark in United States commerce since at least as early as 1985 in connection with a wide variety of outdoor consumer goods, including tents, backpacks, coolers, sleeping bags, camp chairs, water bottles, and related camping and outdoor accessories. Complainant owns more than 25 U.S. federal trademark registrations that include the OZARK TRAIL mark (collectively, the "OZARK TRAIL Trademarks"), including U.S. Reg. No. 1,922,173 (registered 1995), U.S. Reg. No. 2,188,376, U.S. Reg. No. 2,919,428, U.S. Reg. No. 3,142,505, U.S. Reg. No. 6,230,158, and U.S. Reg. No. 6,925,242, each of which long predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. Complainant has owned and operated the website at <walmart.com> since at least as early as 1995 and offers OZARK TRAIL-branded goods online and through its mobile application.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <theozarktrailco.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL Trademarks because it incorporates the OZARK TRAIL mark in its entirety, with the spaces removed, and merely adds the article "the," the corporate-form abbreviation "co," and the ".com" gTLD. None of those additions distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by <theozarktrailco.com> or by "OZARK TRAIL," the WHOIS record showing only "Ali Bhatti," and Respondent has not been authorized by Complainant to use the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks in any manner. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that styles itself as the "Ozark Trail Official Website," prominently displays Complainant's OZARK TRAIL logo, lists product categories that mirror Complainant's actual OZARK TRAIL offerings (tents, coolers, water bottles, knives, mountain bikes, and the like), recites a "Bentonville, Arkansas, United States" location matching Complainant's corporate headquarters, includes an FAQ entry asking "Is Ozark Trail a Walmart brand?," solicits visitor e-mail addresses through a "Subscribe and get A discount" form, and routes visitors who attempt to purchase products to third-party Amazon affiliate links via buttons labelled "View All Products," "Shop Now," and "View More." Such use — impersonating Complainant in order to harvest e-mail addresses and to monetize confusion through Amazon affiliate commissions — is neither 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).

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Complainant's rights in the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name on December 17, 2025 by approximately four decades. OZARK TRAIL is a coined and well-known mark; given Respondent's adoption of the mark in combination with the article "the" and the corporate abbreviation "co," and Respondent's use of the resulting domain name to operate a copycat website that holds itself out as the "Ozark Trail Official Website" — recites Complainant's actual Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters, mirrors Complainant's product range, references Walmart in its FAQ, and channels users to Amazon affiliate listings — it is impossible to believe that Respondent did not have actual knowledge of Complainant's rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent has thereby intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and has used the Disputed Domain Name to disrupt Complainant's business in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Walmart Apollo, LLC owns more than 25 U.S. federal trademark registrations that include the OZARK TRAIL mark, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,922,173 (registered 1995), U.S. Reg. No. 2,188,376, U.S. Reg. No. 2,919,428, U.S. Reg. No. 3,142,505, U.S. Reg. No. 6,230,158, and U.S. Reg. No. 6,925,242, each of which predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by many years. Complainant has used the OZARK TRAIL mark in commerce in the United States since at least as early as 1985 in connection with a wide range of outdoor consumer goods sold through Complainant's walmart.com website, mobile application, and retail locations.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <theozarktrailco.com> on December 17, 2025. Respondent is an individual apparently located in Sindh, Pakistan, is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") that styles itself as the "Ozark Trail Official Website" and prominently displays Complainant's OZARK TRAIL logo throughout. The Respondent's Website lists product categories and offerings that mirror Complainant's actual OZARK TRAIL goods (tents, coolers, water bottles, knives, mountain bikes, electric bikes, and replacement parts), recites a footer location of "Bentonville, Arkansas, United States" — Complainant's corporate headquarters — and contains an FAQ entry asking "Is Ozark Trail a Walmart brand?" The Respondent's Website solicits visitor e-mail addresses through a "Subscribe and get A discount" form and routes visitors who click "View All Products," "Shop Now," or "View More" to third-party Amazon listings via affiliate links, while disclaiming in the footer — in inconspicuous text — that the site is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program.

 

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).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through, among other things, its U.S. federal trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,922,173 (registered 1995), each of which predates the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by many years. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy).

 

The Disputed Domain Name <theozarktrailco.com> wholly incorporates Complainant's OZARK TRAIL mark, with the space between "OZARK" and "TRAIL" removed, and merely adds the article "the," the corporate-form abbreviation "co," and the ".com" gTLD. None of those additions dispels the confusing similarity; the leading article "the" and the trailing abbreviation "co" reinforce, rather than diminish, the impression that the Disputed Domain Name is associated with the corporate entity that owns the OZARK TRAIL brand. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms — descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise — does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element).

 

The ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's OZARK TRAIL Trademarks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS record, as confirmed by the Registrar, identifies the registrant as "Ali Bhatti." Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by OZARK TRAIL under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks in any manner. See Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024).

 

The Respondent's Website holds itself out as the "Ozark Trail Official Website," prominently displays Complainant's OZARK TRAIL logo, lists product categories that mirror Complainant's actual OZARK TRAIL goods, recites a Bentonville, Arkansas footer location matching Complainant's corporate headquarters, references the Walmart parentage of the brand in its FAQ, harvests visitor e-mail addresses, and channels visitors who attempt to purchase products to third-party Amazon listings via affiliate links. Using a confusingly similar domain name to impersonate Complainant and to monetize the resulting confusion through Amazon affiliate commissions and e-mail collection is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has come forward with no evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's rights in the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks, as evidenced by U.S. registrations dating back to 1995 and use in commerce dating back to at least 1985, predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name on December 17, 2025 by approximately four decades. Respondent did not select the Disputed Domain Name at random. By pairing OZARK TRAIL with the article "the" and the corporate abbreviation "co," and by populating the Respondent's Website with Complainant's OZARK TRAIL logo, product categories drawn from Complainant's actual OZARK TRAIL line, a footer reciting Complainant's Bentonville, Arkansas headquarters, and an FAQ entry expressly referencing the Walmart parentage of the OZARK TRAIL brand, Respondent has demonstrated unmistakable knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the OZARK TRAIL Trademarks at the time of registration. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (actual knowledge of complainant's mark may be inferred from the substantial fame of the mark and the manner of respondent's use).

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to operate the Respondent's Website — styled as the "Ozark Trail Official Website," mirroring Complainant's product range, and channelling visitors to third-party Amazon listings via affiliate links — demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's OZARK TRAIL Trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). Diverting Internet users who are searching for Complainant's OZARK TRAIL goods to Amazon listings for competing products simultaneously disrupts Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). 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 used a domain name to direct 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); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Private Whois mywalmartcom.com, FA 1402076 (Forum Sept. 13, 2011).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith under 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 <theozarktrailco.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: April 30, 2026