NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM

DECISION

United States Semiquincentennial Commission v. Liang Zhu / Shen Zhen Shi Yi Tong Wang Luo Ke Ji You Xian Ze Ren Gong Si

Claim Number: FA2606002225401

PARTIES

Complainant is United States Semiquincentennial Commission ("Complainant"), represented by Jonathan Uffelman of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Liang Zhu / Shen Zhen Shi Yi Tong Wang Luo Ke Ji You Xian Ze Ren Gong Si ("Respondent"), China.

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <america250localsupply.com>, registered with Cloud Yuqu LLC.

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.

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 4, 2026; Forum received payment on June 4, 2026.

On June 4, 2026, Cloud Yuqu LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <america250localsupply.com> domain name is registered with Cloud Yuqu LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Cloud Yuqu LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Cloud Yuqu LLC 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@america250localsupply.com. 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 Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Chinese, which establishes Chinese as the default language of the proceeding.

Complainant asserts that the proceeding should be conducted in English because Respondent understands the language. Under UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel has the discretionary authority to determine the appropriate language of the proceeding, taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the case. See FilmNet Inc. v. Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001) (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement, because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English).

Complainant contends that its working language is English. Mandating the use of Chinese would impose an undue burden on Complainant by forcing it to incur substantial translation costs that are disproportionate to the standard expenses of normal proceedings. Additionally, the disputed domain name and its associated website are in English. Based on these facts, Complainant asserts that the balance of hardships and fairness weighs strongly in its favor, and respectfully requests that this proceeding be conducted in English.

Given the absence of a Response, even after the issuance of the Commencement Notification in Chinese, and the lack of any objection to Complainant's request, the Panel, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) and after considering the circumstances of the present case, decides that English shall be the language of the proceeding, and that the remainder of the proceeding shall be conducted in English.

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant is an agency of the United States government, located in Washington, DC. Complainant was established by Congress in 2016 to orchestrate the 250th anniversary of the United States' founding. America250.org, Inc. ("America250") is the nonprofit supporting organization to Complainant, working collaboratively to facilitate partnerships that will bring the vision of America 250 to life. Complainant's mission is and has been to engage nearly 350 million Americans and millions of friends worldwide in the largest, most inclusive celebration and commemoration of our nation's founding in history. Complainant owns registrations for the AMERICA 250 word and stylized marks, inter alia, the USPTO registration for the AMERICA 250 mark (e.g., Reg. No. 7,844,524, registered June 24, 2025, in Classes 25 and 26). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the AMERICA 250 mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic or descriptive terms "local" and "supply," and the non-distinguishing gTLD ".com."

ii) Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant granted Respondent any license or authorization to use Complainant's marks in connection with the disputed domain name. Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is the disputed domain name being used for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use purpose. Respondent's use of Complainant's AMERICA 250 mark in its website header and in the copyright notice at the bottom of the website shows that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant that does not exist. Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's demand letter is further evidence that it holds no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

iii) Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) because Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its commercial website that sells products that compete with Complainant's. Respondent's use of Complainant's AMERICA 250 mark in the website header and copyright notice at the bottom of the disputed domain name's website is further evidence of bad faith because it creates the impression that Respondent is somehow affiliated with Complainant. Respondent's failure to respond to Complainant's demand letter is further evidence that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Respondent knew of Complainant's rights in the AMERICA 250 mark before registering the disputed domain name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 13, 2026.

2. Complainant has established rights in the AMERICA 250 word and stylized marks, inter alia, the USPTO registration for the AMERICA 250 mark (e.g., Reg. No. 7,844,524, registered June 24, 2025 in Classes 25 and 26).

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that directly competes with Complainant's online store. Respondent's website prominently displays the AMERICA 250 mark throughout its homepage and sells products that compete with those of Complainant, displaying the AMERICA 250 mark in its product descriptions, as well as on the products themselves.

5. On May 7, 2026, Complainant sent Respondent a letter demanding that the website be disabled and the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. Respondent has not responded to Complainant's letter.

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) ("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

Complainant asserts rights in the AMERICA 250 word and stylized marks, inter alia, the USPTO registration for the AMERICA 250 mark (e.g., Reg. No. 7,844,524, registered June 24, 2025 in Classes 25 and 26). Complainant has submitted evidence demonstrating the registration of the AMERICA 250 marks. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the AMERICA 250 marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Complainant argues that the disputed domain name <america250localsupply.com> is confusingly similar to its AMERICA 250 mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety with only the addition of the generic or descriptive terms "local" and "supply," and the non-distinguishing gTLD ".com." The Panel agrees that the mere addition of a descriptive or generic term and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and thus concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Liang Zhu / Shen Zhen Shi Yi Tong Wang Luo Ke Ji You Xian Ze Ren Gong Si" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring the AMERICA 250 marks.

The Panel observes that under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii), passing itself off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. See hipChain, Inc. v. 谢东东 / 谢东东, FA 1785189 (Forum June 21, 2018) ("The resolving webpages between Complainant's and Respondent's websites are virtually the same. Respondent's use of the disputed domain name does not confer rights and legitimate interests under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii)."); see also Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Inversiones HP Milenium C.A., FA 105775 (Forum Apr. 12, 2002) ("Respondent's use of the confusingly similar domain name [<hpmilenium.com>] to sell counterfeit versions of Complainant's [HP] products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).").

The Panel specifically notes that Complainant provides screenshots of both Complainant's official website and the resolving webpage at the disputed domain name, which directly competes with Complainant's online store. Respondent's website prominently displays the AMERICA 250 mark throughout its homepage and sells products that compete with those of Complainant, displaying the AMERICA 250 mark in its product descriptions, as well as on the products themselves. Respondent's website also displays a copyright notice at the bottom of the page that incorporates the AMERICA 250 mark, reading "© 2026 America250 Local Supply."

The Panel finds that Respondent's fraudulent use of the disputed domain name to pass itself off as Complainant does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case. Given that Respondent has failed to submit a Response or otherwise rebut this prima facie case, the Panel concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent registered the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant or to create a false impression of affiliation with Complainant.

Where Respondent uses a disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, such conduct may constitute a bad faith disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), as well as an attempt to attract Internet users for commercial gain under 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 uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing 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'").

As previously noted, Complainant provides screenshots of both Complainant's website and the resolving webpage to which the disputed domain name directs, which prominently displays the AMERICA 250 mark throughout its homepage and sells products that compete with those of Complainant, displaying the AMERICA 250 mark in its product descriptions, as well as on the products themselves. Respondent's website also displays a copyright notice at the bottom of the page that incorporates the AMERICA 250 mark, reading "© 2026 America250 Local Supply." The website associated with the disputed domain name directly competes with Complainant's online store.

The Panel finds that such passing off activities constitute a disruption of Complainant's business under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

Additionally, Complainant contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMERICA 250 marks. The Panel finds that the AMERICA 250 trademark has achieved well-known status due to the massive, nationwide scale of Complainant's operations and promotional efforts. Established by Congress in 2016 to orchestrate the 250th anniversary of the United States, Complainant has successfully engaged hundreds of millions of people worldwide. The widespread recognition of the mark is demonstrated by its prominent exposure during major national broadcasts, such as an NFL Thanksgiving Day game and PBS's Independence Day programming, reaching tens of millions of viewers. This visibility is heavily amplified by continuous coverage across hundreds of major media outlets and extensive promotional campaigns spearheaded by federal agencies, state commissions, and high-profile celebrity ambassadors. Furthermore, the mark's immense fame is cemented by official sponsorships and partnerships with some of the world's leading brands, sports leagues, and institutions, including Amazon, Coca-Cola, Walmart, and the National Football League. Supported by unprecedented bipartisan political backing, including former U.S. Presidents serving as honorary co-chairs, Complainant has continuously used the AMERICA 250 mark and logo across its official website, merchandise, and public initiatives, thereby firmly establishing it as a highly recognized and famous trademark.

Given the notoriety of the AMERICA 250 marks and Respondent's conduct in passing itself off as Complainant by displaying the AMERICA 250 marks and placing a copyright notice at the bottom of its website that incorporates the AMERICA 250 mark, reading "© 2026 America250 Local Supply," the Panel infers that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the AMERICA 250 marks at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered 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 <america250localsupply.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: July 1, 2026