DECISION

 

Body Glove IP Holdings, LP v. dantangchun / dan tangchun

Claim Number: FA2606002225231

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Body Glove IP Holdings, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew R. Mills of ArentFox Schiff LLP, Washington, D.C., USA. Respondent is dantangchun / dan tangchun ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <body-glove.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Bangning Digital Technology Co., 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.

 

David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 3, 2026; Forum received payment on June 3, 2026.

 

On June 6, 2026, Bangning Digital Technology Co., Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <body-glove.com> domain name is registered with Bangning Digital Technology Co., Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Bangning Digital Technology Co., Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Bangning 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").

 

Complainant submitted an Amended Complaint on June 8, 2026, following the Registrar's disclosure of the underlying registrant information.

 

On June 9, 2026, Forum served the Amended Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@body-glove.com. Also on June 9, 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 30, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 Disputed Domain Name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it owns numerous trademark registrations around the world consisting of or incorporating the mark BODY GLOVE (collectively, the "BODY GLOVE Marks"), used in connection with a wide range of water sports, outdoor recreation, and lifestyle products, including wetsuits, swimwear, surf gear, apparel, and accessories. Complainant's portfolio includes more than 100 registrations spanning over 40 countries, among them U.S. Reg. No. 4,186,526, registered August 7, 2012; U.S. Reg. No. 5,741,370, registered April 30, 2019; U.S. Reg. No. 6,120,594, registered August 4, 2020; U.S. Reg. No. 6,433,793 (BODY GLOVE & Hand Design), registered July 27, 2021; European Union Reg. No. 1137967, registered June 8, 2012; Canada Reg. No. TMA456958, registered May 3, 1996; and Australia Reg. No. 348677 (THE BODY GLOVE & Hand Design), registered July 18, 1980. Complainant and its predecessors have used the BODY GLOVE mark in commerce since 1953, and the brand is a globally recognized leader in the water sports, surf, and lifestyle markets.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <body-glove.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's BODY GLOVE Marks because it incorporates the BODY GLOVE mark in its entirety, deviating only by inserting a hyphen between the terms "body" and "glove" and adding the ".com" generic top-level domain. The addition of a hyphen and a gTLD does not distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent owns no trademark rights in BODY GLOVE or any variation, is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, and has never been licensed or otherwise authorized by Complainant to use the BODY GLOVE Marks or to register a domain name incorporating them. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name holds itself out as an official BODY GLOVE online store: it prominently displays Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark and logo, references Complainant's actual founders and founding year of 1953, offers categories of swimwear, wetsuits, life vests, accessories, and apparel, advertises purported BODY GLOVE products at discounts of up to 69% off, and solicits visitors' personal and financial information through product purchases and newsletter sign-ups, without disclosing the actual site sponsor or disclaiming any association with Complainant. Such use, passing itself off as Complainant, is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on May 12, 2026, decades after Complainant acquired its trademark registrations, and BODY GLOVE has no meaning apart from its association with Complainant. The fame of the BODY GLOVE Marks, the wholesale incorporation of the mark in the Disputed Domain Name, and the website's display of Complainant's mark, logo, and founding history demonstrate that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and targeted Complainant. Respondent uses the Disputed Domain Name to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the BODY GLOVE Marks as to source, affiliation, or sponsorship, in violation of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), and to pass itself off as Complainant's official online store.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant Body Glove IP Holdings, LP owns numerous trademark registrations worldwide consisting of or incorporating the mark BODY GLOVE, including U.S. Reg. No. 4,186,526, registered August 7, 2012, and registrations in the European Union, Canada, and Australia, the earliest of which (Australia Reg. No. 348677) dates to July 18, 1980. The BODY GLOVE Marks are used in connection with wetsuits, swimwear, surf gear, apparel, and accessories, and Complainant and its predecessors have used the BODY GLOVE mark in commerce since 1953. Complainant's rights in the BODY GLOVE Marks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by decades.

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <body-glove.com> on May 12, 2026. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the BODY GLOVE Marks.

 

The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website (the "Respondent's Website") that holds itself out as an official BODY GLOVE online store. The Respondent's Website prominently displays Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark and logo, references Complainant's actual founders and founding year of 1953, and offers categories of swimwear, wetsuits, life vests, accessories, and apparel matching the product categories in which Complainant trades. It advertises purported BODY GLOVE products at promotional discounts of up to 69% off and solicits visitors' personal and financial information through product purchases and newsletter sign-ups. Nowhere does the Respondent's Website disclose the actual site sponsor or disclaim any association with Complainant.

 

The Panel finds that the Respondent's Website passes itself off as Complainant's official BODY GLOVE online store in order to attract Internet users and divert Complainant's customers for commercial gain.

 

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 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).

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established its rights in the BODY GLOVE Marks for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its numerous trademark registrations, including U.S. Reg. No. 4,186,526, registered August 7, 2012, decades before the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (registration of a mark with a national trademark authority sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy).

 

The Disputed Domain Name <body-glove.com> incorporates Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark in its entirety, adding only a hyphen between the two words and the ".com" gTLD. The insertion of a hyphen does nothing to dispel the confusing similarity; Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark remains clearly recognizable within the Disputed Domain Name, which is visually and phonetically nearly indistinguishable from the mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (holding that 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 ".com" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded for purposes of the confusing similarity analysis under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BODY GLOVE Marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The WHOIS record, as confirmed by the Registrar, identifies the registrant as "dantangchun / dan tangchun." Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by BODY GLOVE under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BODY GLOVE Marks in any manner. See Beacon Capital Partners, LLC v. C/O Private Ranger Limited / Registrant of beaconcapitals.com, FA 2075845 (Forum Feb. 1, 2024) (respondent not commonly known by the domain name where the WHOIS information does not correspond to the domain and complainant has not authorized use of its mark).

 

The Respondent's Website holds itself out as an official BODY GLOVE online store, prominently displaying Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark and logo, reciting Complainant's founding history, and advertising purported BODY GLOVE products for sale at deep discounts. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off the Respondent's Website as Complainant's own and to monetize the resulting confusion is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, and Respondent, by failing to submit a Response, has come forward with no evidence to rebut that showing. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant's rights in the BODY GLOVE Marks, evidenced by registrations dating back to 1980 and use in commerce dating to 1953, predate Respondent's May 12, 2026 registration of the Disputed Domain Name by decades. Respondent did not select the Disputed Domain Name at random. BODY GLOVE has no meaning apart from its association with Complainant, and Respondent populated the Respondent's Website with Complainant's BODY GLOVE mark, logo, and founding history while styling the site as the brand's official online store. Respondent has thereby demonstrated actual knowledge of Complainant and its rights in the BODY GLOVE Marks at the time of registration. See AutoZone Parts, Inc. v. Ken Belden, FA 1815011 (Forum Dec. 24, 2018) (actual knowledge of complainant's mark may be inferred from the substantial fame of the mark and the manner of respondent's use).

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name to operate the Respondent's Website, which passes itself off as Complainant's official BODY GLOVE online store, displays Complainant's mark and logo, and offers purported BODY GLOVE products for sale while soliciting visitors' personal and financial information, demonstrates an intentional attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's BODY GLOVE Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website, within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where respondent registered and used a domain name to direct Internet users to a website that mimics complainant's own website to confuse users into believing that respondent is complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with complainant).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using 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 <body-glove.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: June 30, 2026