DECISION

 

Lola Blankets, LLC v. Maci Woyat

Claim Number: FA2604002215079

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Lola Blankets, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Dan Cohn of Husch Blackwell LLP, Missouri, USA. Respondent is Maci Woyat ("Respondent"), District of Columbia, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <lolasblanket.com> ("Domain Name"), registered with Dominet (HK) Limited.

 

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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 9, 2026; Forum received payment on April 9, 2026.

 

On April 12, 2026, Dominet (HK) Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <lolasblanket.com> domain name is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dominet (HK) Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dominet (HK) Limited 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 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 4, 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@lolasblanket.com. Also on April 13, 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 May 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 is a United States company that since 2021 has offered faux fur blankets under the LOLA BLANKETS mark including through its website at www.lolablankets.com, which it has used since 2021. Complainant claims rights in the LOLA BLANKETS mark through registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 8,036,579 registered November 25, 2025 with a date of first use being September 1, 2021).  The domain name <lolasblanket.com> is confusingly similar to the LOLA BLANKETS mark as it incorporates the mark in whole, merely moving letter "s" to create a minor misspelling and adding the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD").

        

Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <lolasblanket.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LOLA BLANKETS mark in any way. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent has used the Domain Name to pass off as Complainant at a website ("Respondent's Website") that reproduces the LOLA BLANKETS mark and copyrighted images and text taken from Complainant's official website while purporting to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's goods.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to attract users for commercial gain as Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to the Respondent's Website where it passes off as Complainant while offering to sell unauthorized products.  Respondent had actual notice of Complainant's rights in the LOLA BLANKETS mark, evidenced by the use of copyrighted text and images taken from Complainant's official website on the Respondent's Website.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the LOLA BLANKETS mark.  The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's LOLA BLANKETS mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name in bad faith.

 

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 rights in the LOLA BLANKETS mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 8,036,579 registered November 25, 2025). Registration with the USPTO can sufficiently establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

The Panel finds that <lolasblanket.com> is confusingly similar to the LOLA BLANKETS mark as it consists of a minor misspelling of the LOLA BLANKETS mark, merely removing the letter "s" at the end of "blankets", adding it after "lola" and adding the gTLD ".com".  Misspelling a mark by adding, deleting, or exchanging a letter (and adding a top-level-domain) is not sufficient to avoid confusion between a domain name and a mark.  See Omaha Steaks International, Inc. v. DN Manager / Whois-Privacy.Net Ltd, FA 1610122 (Forum July 9, 2015) (finding, "The domain name differs from the mark only in that the domain name substitutes the letter 'a' in the word 'steak' with the letter 'c' and adds the generic Top Level Domain ('gTLD') '.com.'  These alterations of the mark, made in forming the domain name, do not save it from the realm of confusing similarity under the standards of the Policy."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (concluding that the affixation of a TLD to a domain name is irrelevant to a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis). 

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the LOLA BLANKETS mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Maci Woyat" as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to the Respondent's Website which, through the reproduction of the LOLA BLANKETS mark and copyrighted text and images taken from Complainant's official website, passed itself off as an official website of the Complainant for the purpose of offering for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods, in direct competition with Complainant's merchandise. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that directly offers unauthorized versions of a complainant's goods does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See BALENCIAGA SA v. ling lin, FA 1768542 (Forum Feb. 16, 2018) ("The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's registered mark, and are being used for websites that prominently display Complainant's mark and logo, along with apparent images of Complainant's products, offering them for sale at discounted prices. The sites do not disclaim any connection with Complainant, and in fact seem to be designed to create an appearance of such a connection. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests."). See also Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

While noting that registration date of the Domain Name (November 14, 2025) predates the registration date of the LOLA BLANKETS mark, the Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the date the Respondent registered the Domain Name, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its (then unregistered) LOLA BLANKETS mark since Complainant had used the LOLA BLANKETS mark continuously since 2021 (including from its website, from which Respondent has reproducing copyrighted images and text).  Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register a domain name that contains a minor misspelling of the LOLA BLANKETS mark and use it to redirect visitors to a website selling faux fur blankets in direct competition with the Complainant under the LOLA BLANKETS mark other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the LOLA BLANKETS mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's LOLA BLANKETS mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website that copied text and images from Complainant's website and offered unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's products in direct competition with the Complainant's products.  Using a confusingly similar domain name to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can evince bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."). See also See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per 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 in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <lolasblanket.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: May 5, 2026