DECISION

 

Surya Carpet, Inc. v. jie zhu

Claim Number: FA2605002219848

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Surya Carpet, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Mark L. Seigel, Georgia, USA. Respondent is jie zhu ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <artisticweaver.com>, ("the Domain Name") registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology 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.

 

Dawn Osborne as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on May 6, 2026; Forum received payment on May 6, 2026.

 

On May 7, 2026, Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <artisticweaver.com> Domain Name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology 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 12, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 1, 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@artisticweaver.com. Also on May 12, 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 June 3, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Dawn Osborne 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 cancelled.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Bearing in mind that the Domain Name points to a commercial site with an English version, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds that persuasive evidence has been adduced by Complainant to suggest the likely possibility that the Respondent is conversant and proficient in the English language and the Panel decides that the proceedings should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

The Complainant's contentions can be summarised as follows:

 

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS registered, inter alia, in the USA for rugs since 2020.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 is confusingly similar to the Complainant's mark, merely omitting a single letter 's' and adding the gTLD .com which does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark.

 

Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and has no permission from the Complainant to use the Complainant's mark. The Domain Name has been used for competing goods, namely rugs, using the Complainant's exact mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS spelled correctly in its masthead and being used as a brand to offer products in the English language priced in dollars. This is not a bona fide offering of goods and services or a non commercial legitimate fair use. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name.

 

The Respondent registered the Domain Name to direct it to a site to confuse Internet users into believing the web site and Domain Name are associated with the Complainant for commercial gain. The Domain Name has been registered and used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the trade mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS registered, inter alia, in the USA for rugs since 2020.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 has been used for competing goods using the Complainant's exact mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS spelled correctly in its masthead and used as a brand and offering competing rugs in the English language priced in dollars. The terms and conditions of the Respondent's web site refer to "body piercing jewellery" and not the product apparently offered on the Respondent's web site rugs.

 

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 Complainant owns the mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS registered, inter alia, in the USA for rugs since 2020.

 

The Domain Name registered in 2023 consists of the sign 'Artistic Weaver' and the gTLD.com.

 

The Panel agrees that misspellings, such as the omission of a letter 's' in this case, does not distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's trade mark pursuant to the Policy. See Twitch Interactive Inc. v Zhang qin, FA 1626511 (Forum Aug 4, 2015).

 

The gTLD .com does not serve to distinguish the Domain Name from the Complainant's mark, which is the distinctive component of the Domain Name. See Red Hat Inc v Haecke FA 726010 (Forum July 24, 2006) (concluding that the redhat.org domain name is identical to the complainant's red hat mark because the mere addition of the gTLD was insufficient to differentiate the disputed domain name from the mark).

 

Accordingly, the Panel holds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar for the purposes of the Policy with a mark in which the Complainant has rights.

 

As such the Panel holds that Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy has been satisfied.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has not authorised the use of its mark or a mispelling of it. There is no evidence or reason to suggest the Respondent is, in fact, commonly known by the Domain Name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The web site attached to the Domain Name features the Complainant's exact mark ARTISTIC WEAVERS spelt correctly as a masthead i.e. used as a brand and not generically to sell competing products rugs with the prices being offered in dollars. It does not make it clear that there is no connection with the Complainant. The site's terms and conditions refer to "body piercing jewellery" and not rugs raising doubts as to whether the Respondent's business is a genuine business offering rugs. Even if it is, the products are being sold in dollars and, therefore, targeting the USA. This is undoubtedly confusing and infringing the Complainant's trade mark. See Am. Intl Group Inc v Benjamin, FA 944242 (Forum May 11, 2007) (finding that the Respondent's use of a confusingly similar domain name to compete with the Complainant's business did not constitute a bona fide use of goods and services.). 

 

Further as the site uses the exact mark of the Complainant AMERICAN WEAVERS (with an 's' at the end) as a brand in its masthead, but the Domain Name contains 'American Weaver' without an 's', the Domain Name appears to be a typosquatting registration. Typosquatting is also an indication of a lack of rights or a legitimate interests. See Chegg Inc. v. yang qijin, FA 1610050 (Forum Apr. 23, 2015) ("Users might mistakenly reach Respondent's resolving website by misspelling Complainant's mark. Taking advantage of Internet users' typographical errors, known as typosquatting, demonstrates a respondent's lack of rights or legitimate interests under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).").

 

The Respondent has not answered the Complaint or rebutted the prima facie case evidenced by the Complainant as set out herein.

 

As such the Panelist finds that the Respondent does not have rights or a legitimate interest in the Domain Name and that the Complainant has satisfied the second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Domain Name seeks to take advantage of the situation where Internet users may make a typographical error. Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use. See Diners Club int'l Ltd. v Domain Admin ****** It's all in the name ******, FA 156839 (Forum June 23, 2003) (registering a domain name in the hope that Internet users will mistype the Complainant's mark and be taken to the Respondent's site is registration and use in bad faith). Typosquatting also indicates the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its rights.  See InfoSpace, Inc. v. Greiner, FA 227653 (Forum Mar. 8, 2004) ("Respondent's domain name is a simple and popular variation of a trademark commonly used by typosquatters …Such a domain name evidences actual knowledge of the underlying mark prior to the registration of the domain name, and as Respondent failed to submit any evidence to counter this inferrence [sic], Respondent's actions evidence bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.").

 

The use of the Complainant's exact mark as a masthead, as a brand and not in a generic manner and the offering of competing products priced in dollars shows the Respondent is targeting the USA where the Complainant trades (and is protected by its registered trade mark).

 

Respondent has used a domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant's AMERICAN WEAVERS mark known for rugs to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, targeting the jurisdiction where the Complainant is based and in the process disrupting the Complainant's business. See Asbury Auto Group Inc v Tex. Int'l Prop Assocs FA 958542 (Forum May 29, 2007) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to compete with the complainant's business would likely lead to confusion amongst Internet users as to the sponsorship or affiliation of a competing business and was therefore evidence of bad faith and use).

 

The Panel also notes that the Respondent's terms and conditions on its site refer to "body piercing jewellery" and not rugs raising the question as to whether the Respondent is really trading in the product rugs at all.

 

As such, the Panelist believes that the Complainant has made out its case that the Domain Name was registered and used in bad faith and has satisfied the third limb of the Policy under para 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

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 <artisticweaver.com> domain name be CANCELLED.

 

 

 

Dawn Osborne, Panelist

Dated: June 3, 2026