DECISION

 

Roots Corporation v. Jun Chen

Claim Number: FA2605002219195

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Roots Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by Gina Carrillo of Corsearch, Inc., New York, USA. Respondent is Jun Chen ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <canada-roots.com>, registered with Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd.

 

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.

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On May 6, 2026, Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <canada-roots.com> domain name is registered with Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xiamen 35.com Information Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xiamen 35.com Information Co., 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 May 13, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 2, 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@canada-roots.com. Also, on May 13, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On June 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Héctor Ariel Manoff 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

According to the Registrar, the registration agreement is written in Chinese. Rule 11(a) provides that the language of the proceedings is the language of the registration agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the case. Complainant filed its Amended Complaint in English and requests that these proceedings be conducted in English.

 

The Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

The disputed domain name targets a trademark owned by a Canada based company (in which English is one of the spoken language) and is comprised of a word in English ROOTS.

 

In addition, the resulting webpage is entirely in English (Exhibit H).

 

Complainant and their representative do not understand Chinese and since there has been no response to the complaint and Respondent has not objected that it could not read or understand the complaint, the Panel finds that in the circumstances it is appropriate for these proceedings to continue in the English language.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

1- Complainant, Root Corporation, is a company established in 1973 with 100 corporate retail stores in Canada, 2 in USA and an e-commerce platform, www.roots.com, with presence across social media platforms.

2- Complainant designs, markets and sells a broad selection of products.

3- Complainant owns trademark rights on ROOTS, ROOTS CANADA and some designs. 

4- The disputed domain name <canada-roots.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademarks, since it incorporates the trademarks and only changes the order of the words, adds a hyphen and the ".com" gTLD.

5- Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

6- The disputed domain name was registered in November 2025 many years after the Complainant's trademarks were registered (1994) and the registration of <roots.com> (1995).

7- The disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, Roots Corporation is a leading company established in 1973 which designs, markets and sells a broad selection of products and owns trademark registrations for ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA as from 1994. Complainant also operates the domain name <roots.com>, which is used in connection with the advertising and sale of its products. Respondent registered the disputed domain name in November 2025. It was registered and used 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

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name, <canada-roots.com> is nearly identical and confusingly similar to Complainant's ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA trademark (Exhibits E and F) and domain name <roots.com> (Exhibit J).

 

It includes the words that are part of the registered trademark with the only difference that they are reversed. Respondent only added a hyphen and the .com gTLD.

 

The Panel concludes that the slight differences in the disputed domain name can lead the consumers into confusion. See Acme Lift Company, L.L.C. v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd, FA 1607039 (Forum Apr. 11, 2015) (stating, "Where a respondent has created a domain name in an effort to visually deceive Internet users via a simple misspelling (and when such misspellings are visually similar to the mark), a finding of confusing similarity under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) is appropriate."). See also Lucasfilm Entertainment Company Ltd. LLC v George Ring, FA 1673825 (Forum June 7, 2016) (finding that, although a respondent's domain name <lukasfilm.com> incorporated the LUCASFILM mark of another and merely substituted a 'k' for the 'c,' it was nonetheless confusingly similar to that mark).

 

The Panel finds that it is clear that Respondent knew that ROOTS CANADA belonged to Complainant. Respondent has just added a hyphen and reversed the terms. The Panel finds that the domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark since the additional elements are not sufficiently distinctive. See Microsoft Corporation v. Thong Tran Thanh, FA 1653187 (Forum Jan. 21, 2016) (determining that confusing similarity exists where [a disputed domain name] contains Complainant's entire mark and differs only by the addition of a generic or descriptive phrase and top-level domain, the differences between the domain name and its contained trademark are insufficient to differentiate one from the other for the purposes of the Policy); see also, 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").

 

The Panel finds that the domain name is almost identical and confusingly similar to Complainant marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant argues Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has never licensed rights to or authorized Respondent to use the ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA marks.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the <canada-roots.com> domain name. Under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), relevant WHOIS information, among other evidence, may demonstrate that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA 1626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named "Fred Wallace" as registrant of the disputed domain name).

 

In this case according to the information provided, Respondent is mentioned as Jun Chen. Thus, the Panel concludes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Further, there is no evidence to suggest Respondent was authorized, licensed rights to, or otherwise permitted to use the ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA marks.

 

Respondent has neither refuted nor submitted evidence on the contrary.

 

According to the evidence submitted (Exhibit H), Respondent's use of the <canada-roots.com> domain is not a bona fide offering of goods. The website includes Complainant's trademark, design and products.

 

This Panel finds that the purpose of the disputed domain name is to try to show that the disputed domain name is associated with Complainant and that Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial use or fair use under Policy 4(c)(iii). 

 

Therefore, the Panel agrees that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and does not have legitimate interest under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant has proved trademark rights (Exhibit E and F) and use before the disputed domain name's date of registration (Exhibit I).

 

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, trademarks ROOTS and ROOTS CANADA were granted in 1994 and the domain name <canada-roots.com> was created on November 6, 2025.

 

The Panel finds that the registration of the domain name was done with Complainant's mark in mind since the domain name includes it (but reversed) with the addition of a hyphen. Complainant also uses the <roots.com> domain name to promote its products.

 

In the Panel's point of view the cited facts, which were neither responded nor refuted by Respondent, are sufficient evidence to support that the registration of the domain name was registered in bad faith.

 

As regards to the use of the disputed domain name, this Panel also finds that it was done in bad faith. Complainant has submitted evidence to prove that the domain name was used to impersonate Complainant by using an identical logo (Exhibit H).

 

The Panel concludes that Respondent has the intention of creating an association with Complainant and its services.

 

This Panel concludes that Respondent has registered the domain name with the intent to attract and divert Internet users to the corresponding websites for its own benefit. See Carey Int'l, Inc. v. Kogan, FA 486191 (Forum July 29, 2005) ("[T]he Panel finds that Respondent is capitalizing on the confusing similarity of its domain names to benefit from the valuable goodwill that Complainant has established in its marks. Consequently, it is found that Respondent registered and used the domain names in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)."); 

 

The Panel determines that Respondent registered and used 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 <canada-roots.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Héctor Ariel Manoff, Panelist

Dated: June 12, 2026