DECISION

 

WalkingCo LLC v. Yang Zhenji

Claim Number: FA2606002224944

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WalkingCo LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa S. LaBauve of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Yang Zhenji ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <abeofootwearsale.shop>, registered with West263 International Limited.

 

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 June 2, 2026; Forum received payment on June 2, 2026.

 

On June 2, 2026, West263 International Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <abeofootwearsale.shop> domain name is registered with West263 International Limited and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. West263 International Limited has verified that Respondent is bound by the West263 International 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 June 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of June 29, 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@abeofootwearsale.shop. Also on June 8, 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 30, 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDING

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name targets a trademark owned by a Nevada, United States company. The at-issue domain name utilizes the Latin alphabet and contains of an English phrase. Thus, it appears that Respondent is capable of understanding English, as Respondent specifically chose and registered an English-language domain name. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese.

 

Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel finds that the instant proceeding should be in English.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant WalkingCo LLC offers various footwear products, including men's and women's shoes, orthotics, accessories, and related lifestyle apparel. For many years, Complainant has provided its products to a diverse range of consumers globally, offering high-quality products designed to promote foot health and overall wellness. Consumers recognize the ABEO mark for its innovative footwear technology, including customized orthotic footbeds and ergonomic designs tailored to individual comfort and support needs.

 

Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations globally for the ABEO mark including registrations issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

 

The at-issue domain name resolves to a website that prominently features footwear products that are confusingly similar to those offered by Complainant under the ABEO mark and uses the same logo as Complainant.

 

Respondent was initially hidden behind a domain privacy service provider. Available records offer no information concerning the disputed domain name owner.

 

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to the ABEO mark. Complainant owns rights in the word mark ABEO, certain associated design marks, and the domain name www.abeofootwear.com. When selecting the at-issue domain name, Respondent intentionally selected a name that fully reproduces the ABEO mark as its distinctive element, merely adding the descriptive terms "footwear" and "sale" and the gTLD ".shop", and thereby also closely mirroring Complainant's domain name www.abeofootwear.com by incorporating "abeofootwear" together with generic term "sale" and gTLD ".shop." Thus, the at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests concerning the at-issue domain name. Complainant has used its ABEO mark since at least as early as 2010, long before any use of the mark by Respondent. Complainant obtained its earliest U.S. federal registration for the ABEO mark in 2010, long before any relevant use by Respondent. Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name. Respondent has neither used, nor made any demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, Respondent is actively using the at-issue domain name and its website to sell footwear products using Complainant's ABEO branding, logo, and product name. The site prominently displays the ABEO logo and offers ABEO-branded products at heavily discounted prices. While the authenticity of the products is unknown, the use of the ABEO mark and logo in the domain name and on the website, combined with the sale of ABEO-branded products at steep discounts, creates a misleading impression that the website is affiliated with, authorized by, or endorsed by Complainant. Respondent is not affiliated with or endorsed by Complainant and has no rights in the ABEO mark. Use in this manner does not and cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). There is no evidence of any other use of "ABEO" by Respondent. Respondent is not in any way affiliated with Complainant. Respondent registered the domain name without Complainant's knowledge or permission. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the ABEO mark. The Whois database indicates that Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in October 2025 – long after Complainant registered its legitimate domain name in 2009. These facts are more than sufficient to make a prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the at-issue domain name. Furthermore, the facts do not support any of the grounds for legitimate interests identified in Paragraph 4(c)(i)-(iii) of the Policy. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name, which incorporates Complainant's registered ABEO mark in its entirety, and is using it to operate a commercial website that sells footwear products, including ABEO-branded items. By using the ABEO mark in the domain name and selling ABEO-branded products, Respondent is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the site and its offerings. When a respondent uses an at-issue domain name to impersonate a complainant, such conduct can constitute bad faith disruption of the complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). Complainant first registered its ABEO mark in 2010, well before Respondent registered the at-issue domain name in October 2025. Complainant's numerous registrations for the ABEO mark provided Respondent with constructive notice of Complainant's rights in the ABEO mark. Even without these registrations, the ABEO mark is extensively advertised and well-known in multiple jurisdictions. Further, the presence of Complainant's ABEO-branded products on Respondent's website demonstrates that Respondent not only had direct knowledge of Complainant and its business but intentionally selected at-issue domain name to create a false impression of affiliation or endorsement, thereby profiting from consumer confusion. Respondent was aware of Complainant's superior rights in the ABEO mark when it registered the at-issue domain name. Respondent had both actual and constructive knowledge of the ABEO mark when registering the domain name. This alone is sufficient evidence of bad faith. Further, Respondent has used a privacy service to hide its identity. As evident in the Whois Record the registrant's identity is "redacted for privacy." Use of a privacy service is established evidence of bad faith registration and use.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the ABEO mark.

 

Complainant's rights in ABEO predate Respondent's registration of <abeofootwearsale.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 looking like it is authorized by Complainant where Respondent offers Complainant's ABEO branded 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 trademark registrations for ABEO worldwide including registrations with the USPTO. 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 <abeofootwearsale.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's ABEO trademark followed by the suggestive term "footwearsale" or terms "footwear" and "sale," with all followed by the here suggestive but confusing similarity analysis generally irrelevant top-level, ".shop." The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's ABEO trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <abeofootwearsale.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 <abeofootwearsale.shop> leads to identifying <abeofootwearsale.shop>'s registrant as "Yang Zhenji" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <abeofootwearsale.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 may be a genuine or authorized website of Complainant. The <abeofootwearsale.shop> website displays Complainant's ABEO trademark, logo, and images of an array of Complainant's products purportedly for sale at a deep discount. Respondent's use of <abeofootwearsale.shop> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's 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 <abeofootwearsale.shop>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

As mentioned above, Respondent uses <abeofootwearsale.shop> to address a website looking like it might be an authorized website of Complainant. There, Complainant displays images and discount pricing for a number of Complainant's footwear products. Respondent's use of <abeofootwearsale.shop> to pass off as Complainant or an agent of Complainant and feign being an authorized 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 <abeofootwearsale.shop> domain name and Complainant's ABEO trademark. Respondent's use of <abeofootwearsale.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 ABEO mark when Respondent registered <abeofootwearsale.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from Complainant's long-term use and worldwide notoriety of Complainant's ABEO trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website dressed as if it is an authorized website of Complainant. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in ABEO 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 <abeofootwearsale.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: June 30, 2026