DECISION

 

Tommy John, Inc. v. huapusjmn huapusjmn

Claim Number: FA2604002218574

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tommy John, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Stacy J. Grossman of Law Office of Stacy J. Grossman PLLC dba SGIP, New York, USA. Respondent is huapusjmn huapusjmn ("Respondent"), Florida, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <shoptommyjohn.shop>, 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 29, 2026; Forum received payment on April 29, 2026.

 

On April 30, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shoptommyjohn.shop> 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 May 1, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 21, 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@shoptommyjohn.shop. Also on May 1, 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 22, 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:

 

The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant Tommy John, Inc. is a business engaged in the manufacture and sale of clothing under the trademark TOMMY JOHN, which is the nickname of the company's founder, Thomas John Patterson. As a result of Complainant's long-term and continuous use of the TOMMY JOHN trademark for more than 15 years in connection with its products, and its substantial investment of time, effort and money in the brand, Complainant has built substantial goodwill in its trademark. TOMMY JOHN is well known, and consumers in the United States and around the world have come to associate it with Complainant, and to recognize it as a premium manufacturer of clothing with significant brand loyalty. The TOMMY JOHN trademark is an exceptionally valuable asset. Complainant has multiple USPTO trademark registrations for its TOMMY JOHN mark. The at-issue domain name was registered by Respondent on February 27, 2026. Complainant did not find any indication on the at-issue domain name of any disclaimer or other statement which would inform the Internet visitor that there is no connection between Respondent's website and Complainant. The at-issue domain name is comprised of SHOPTOMMYJOHN with the inclusion of the generic top-level domain ".SHOP." The inclusion of "SHOP" in the domain name is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a given mark.

 

Respondent should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name that is the subject of the complaint. (1) the respondent is not a licensee of the complainant; (2) the complainant's prior rights in the domain name precede the respondent's registration; and (3) the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name in question. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name is designed to confuse unsuspecting Internet users. Respondent has egregiously copied Complainant's website and is purporting to sell legitimate product at a deeply discounted or different price point. The purpose of at-issue domain name is designed to trick unknowing consumers into purchasing products that don't exist and is related to nefarious activity. Respondent's <shoptommyjohn.shop> website page tab looks identical to Complainant's website page tab, incorporating Complainant's registered "T" design and the TOMMY JOHN registered mark. And the use of the TOMMY JOHN mark is in the same font. The resolving website offers unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's goods. These are not bona fide offerings of goods and services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy.

 

The domain name should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith. Given (i) the fame of Complainant's TOMMY JOHN mark when Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, (ii) the fact that the owner is using the domain name in an attempt to offer goods that are identical to the goods covered by Complainant's registered trademarks, and (iii) the fact that the owner of the at-issue domain name registered a domain that is identical to Complainant's TOMMY JOHN mark, it is clear that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademarks at the time it registered <shoptommyjohn.shop>. This all constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Respondent adopted a domain name identical to Complainant's mark, stole imagery from Complainant's website, is selling questionable and off-priced product under Complainant's brands, and is attempting to pass itself off as Complainant -- all in an effort to divert business from Complainant and confuse the public. The fact that the <shoptommyjohn.shop> website offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant's products is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the TOMMY JOHN mark.

 

Complainant's rights in TOMMY JOHN predate Respondent's registration of <shoptommyjohn.shop>.

 

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 to offer 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 TOMMY JOHN. 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 <shoptommyjohn.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's TOMMY JOHN trademark less its domain name impermissible space, prefixed with the suggestive term "shop," and with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".shop" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's TOMMY JOHN trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <shoptommyjohn.shop> 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 <shoptommyjohn.shop> leads to identifying the registrant as "huapusjmn huapusjmn" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <shoptommyjohn.shop> 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 appears like it is a genuine website of Complainant. The <shoptommyjohn.shop> website displays Complainant's TOMMY JOHN trademark and images of an array of Complainant's products purportedly for sale at a discount. Respondent's use of <shoptommyjohn.shop> 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 <shoptommyjohn.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent uses <shoptommyjohn.shop> to address a website looking like it might be a genuine website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays images and discount pricing for an number of Complainant's products. Respondent's use of <shoptommyjohn.shop> 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 <shoptommyjohn.shop> domain name and Complainant's TOMMY JOHN trademark. Respondent's use of <shoptommyjohn.shop> demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and 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 TOMMY JOHN mark when Respondent registered <shoptommyjohn.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from long term use and notoriety of Complainant's TOMMY JOHN 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 thereon. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in TOMMY JOHN further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 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 <shoptommyjohn.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: May 24, 2026