DECISION

 

CCL Label, Inc. v. Rodriguez Bruno

Claim Number: FA2604002217833

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CCL Label, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is Rodriguez Bruno ("Respondent"), Nebraska, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <averyofficeshop.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 24, 2026; Forum received payment on April 24, 2026.

 

On April 26, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <averyofficeshop.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 18, 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@averyofficeshop.com. Also on April 28, 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 19, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 contends in part as follows:

 

For over 90 years, Complainant has used the distinctive AVERY marks for labels, stationery and office supplies, and related goods and services. Complainant's AVERY goods and services are popular and well known in the relevant market. AVERY labels, stationery and office supplies, and related goods and services are known throughout the world, and they are sold through major retailers, including Target, Walmart, Office Max, and Amazon. Complainant markets, advertises, and promotes AVERY products and services in various ways, including through its website at Avery.com.

 

Complainant owns multiple federally registered trademarks for AVERY that are relevant to this matter:

 

Respondent has created a fraudulent website at <averyofficeshop.com> that falsely and deceptively portrays itself as an AVERY website, and it purports to offer AVERY office products for sale.

 

Confusing Similarity. The domain name wholly incorporates the AVERY mark and merely adds the generic terms "office" and "shop" and the generic top-level domain (gTLD) ".com." Adding generic or descriptive terms— especially terms that describe the type of goods that Complainant sells under its mark (e.g., "office" supplies) or that describe the venue through which Complainant sells its trademarked goods (e.g., "shop")—or adding a gTLD to the Complainant's mark does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark.

 

Why Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the complaint. Complainant conducted searches of the USPTO's trademark database for "averyofficeshop," "avery office shop," and "averyofficeshop.com" and found no records of any party, including Respondent, owning trademark rights to or using those terms in connection with any business or bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent has no legitimate rights to the AVERY marks or the  at-issue domain name. Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant in any way, and Complainant has not given Respondent any permission, license, or authorization to use the AVERY marks or the domain name.  Respondent is not known, let alone commonly known, by the domain name. The registration information behind the privacy registration service, which the Registrar provided in response to the filing of the original complaint in this proceeding, further confirms that Respondent is not known or commonly known by the domain name or any variation of it. Instead, Respondent identifies itself as "Rodriguez Bruno" with an email address of brunorodriguez@vnyoumail.com and a physical address of 3461 Maple St., Omaha, NE 68111. None of that registration information has any connection to the disputed domain name. Furthermore, Respondent is unable to prove rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. This is because Respondent's use of the domain name to resolve to a website that deceptively pretends to be a genuine AVERY website does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under the Policy. Respondent cannot claim that its use of the AVERY mark in the domain name is fair use because it has used the AVERY marks in ways that falsely suggest that Respondent's website is owned, controlled, or sponsored by Complainant.

 

Why the domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Respondent's use of the domain name to host a website that impersonates Complainant's business to deceive consumers into believing that Respondent's website is owned by Complainant constitutes bad faith registration and use of the domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and ¶ 4(b)(iv). That Respondent displays AVERY marks on the website at the domain name further proves that Respondent knows of the AVERY marks and is intentionally using the AVERY marks in the domain name to try to impersonate Complainant and to deceive consumers in bad faith. Respondent has used the AVERY marks in ways that falsely suggest that Respondent's website is owned, controlled, or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of false address information on its website further indicates bad faith registration and use. Respondent registered the domain name using false contact information. Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to hide its identity—in consideration with the other facts presented here—further proves bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the AVERY mark.

 

Complainant's rights in AVERY predate Respondent's registration of <averyofficeshop.com>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website mimicking Complainant's genuine website where Respondent purports offers Complainant's products for sale at a discount.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has multiple USPTO trademark registrations for AVERY. Any of such registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <averyofficeshop.com> domain name consists of Complainant's AVERY trademark followed by the suggestive terms "office" and "shop" with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's AVERY trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <averyofficeshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."); see also, Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).)

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006). Since Respondent failed to respond, Complainant's prima facie showing acts conclusively.

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at‑issue domain name. See Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA 1620789 (Forum Jun. 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the at-issue domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark into any domain name).

 

The WHOIS information for <averyofficeshop.com> leads to identifying the registrant behind the domain name's privacy service as "Rodriguez Bruno" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <averyofficeshop.com> or any variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website that appeared like it is a genuine website of Complainant. The <averyofficeshop.com> website displays Complainant's AVERY trademark and images of an array of Complainant's products purportedly for sale at a discount. Respondent's use of <averyofficeshop.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter website is not indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant").

 

Given the foregoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <averyofficeshop.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent uses <averyofficeshop.com> to address a website looking like it might be a genuine website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays images and discount pricing of a variety of Complainant's products. Respondent's use of <averyofficeshop.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and feign being a legitimate online shop for Complainant's merchandise is disruptive to Complainant's business and intended to attract internet users looking for Complainant to Respondent's website so that Respondent might wrongfully capitalize on the confusion it created between its <averyofficeshop.com> domain name and Complainant's AVERY trademark. Respondent's use of <averyofficeshop.com> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration or use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). 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."); see also, Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Domain ID Shield Service / Domain ID Shield Service CO., Limited, FA 1841700 (Forum June 21, 2019) (finding that respondent was using "chevronplacement.com" in bad faith in order to "disrupt the business of Complainant by causing internet users to think an affiliation exists between Respondent's domain names and Complainant");see also, 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).")

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AVERY mark when Respondent registered <averyofficeshop.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the worldwide long-time notoriety of Complainant's AVERY trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website appearing as if it is a genuine website of Complainant and pretending to legitimately offer Complainant's products for sale. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in AVERY further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum September 5, 2024) ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith, and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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 <averyofficeshop.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 19, 2026