DECISION

 

SLT IP Holdings, LP, ST IP Holdings, LP, Dakine IP Holdings, LP, and Eden-T IP Holdings, LP v. Albert Reyes / Tyler Ramirez / Rodney Banks / Ellianna Harwood

Claim Number: FA2606002227688

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SLT IP Holdings, LP, ST IP Holdings, LP, Dakine IP Holdings, LP, and Eden-T IP Holdings, LP ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew Mills of ArentFox Schiff LLP, District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is Albert Reyes / Tyler Ramirez / Rodney Banks / Ellianna Harwood ("Respondent"), USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <surlatablehq.shop>, <stancehq.shop>, <dakinehq.shop> and <toteshq.shop>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

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.

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 16, 2026; Forum received payment on June 16, 2026.

 

On June 21, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the  <surlatablehq.shop>, <stancehq.shop>, <dakinehq.shop> and <toteshq.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that  Respondents are the current registrants of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that the Respondents are bound by the Dynadot Inc registration agreement and have 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint setting a deadline of July 14, 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@surlatablehq.shop, postmaster@stancehq.shop, postmaster@dakinehq.shop and postmaster@toteshq.shop. Also on June 24, 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 July 15, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister as Panelist.

 

On July 15, 2026 the Panel issued a Rule 12 Request for Additional Submission. Complainant responded to that Request on July 16, 2026 and its response was considered by the Panel.

 

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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUES:

Multiple Complainants

Four parties, SLT IP Holdings, LP, ST IP Holdings, LP, Dakine IP Holdings, LP, and Eden-T IP Holdings, LP, filed this administrative proceeding as Complainants. The rules governing multiple complainants are Rule 3(a) and the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint in accordance with the Policy and these Rules."  Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as the "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint."  Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity.

 

In this case, the Complaint states that all four named Complainants are related and affiliated intellectual property holding companies operating under common ownership and control. In response to a Rule 12 Request from the Panel, Complainant submitted a screenshot of the Marquee Brands website demonstrating that the marks of all four named Complainants are among the brands owned and managed by Marquee Brands. While this is not in any sense official documentation or best evidence of the specific arrangements among these companies, it is plausible and credible evidence and is taken as true. A common ownership relationship establishes a nexus among the named Complainants sufficient to meet the requirements of Supplemental Rule 1(e).  Skechers U.S.A., Inc. and Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II v. kim seong su, FA1904001840242 (June 3, 2019) ("Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II is a wholly owned subsidiary of Skechers U.S.A., Inc.  . . . As the two Complainants in this case are in fact closely related, being part of the same company structure, the Panel accepts that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and the Panel will therefore treat them together as a single entity in this proceeding.").

 

Multiple Respondents and Domain Names

The Complaint names four persons as Respondents and relates to four domain names. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  Complainant alleges that all four domain names are operated by the same person or entity using different aliases. For convenience of reference, each domain name is assigned a number, as follows:

 

1. <surlatablehq.shop>, 2. <stancehq.shop>, 3. <dakinehq.shop>, and 4. <toteshq.shop>.

 

The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists a different registrant for each domain name, but all four domain names were registered with the same registrar within three weeks of each other, with the same privacy service (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Annex A). They all exhibit the same naming convention, i.e., Complainant's mark followed by the letters "hq" and the ".shop" generic top-level domain (gTLD). Each domain name points to a different website, each site relating to the mark included in the domain name, but there are a number of elements common to all four websites, e.g., the headings "Why Choose Us," "Trending Now," "What Our Customers Say," "Shop the Collection," "100,000+ Happy Customers," "500+ Products," "50+ Countries", and very similar image format for product photos.  These factors indicate common ownership and control. The Panel finds that all four domain names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as to all of them.  References in this Decision to Respondent, even though in the singular, refer to the registrant of all four domain names.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant has rights in its SUR LA TABLE, STANCE, DAKINE and TOTES marks based upon its registration of those marks with various governmental trademark authorities and by common law. Each of Respondent's <surlatablehq.shop>, <stancehq.shop>, <dakinehq.shop> and <toteshq.shop> domain names is identical or confusingly similar to the corresponding Complainant mark, as it fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the "hq" abbreviation for headquarters and the ".shop" generic top-level domain (gTLD). These changes do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It has not been commonly known by the domain names, it has no affiliation or relationship with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its marks, it is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they resolve to websites that mimic and impersonate Complainant, and Complainant's marks are so well known that the only plausible inference that can be derived is that it registered them to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainants' marks.  

 

Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. It registered them with actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks, it is using them to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites, and it registered the domain names in violation of Policy ¶ 2.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

C. Complainant Additional Submission

On July 16, 2026 in response to a Rule 12 Request by the Panel, Complainant filed an Additional Submission consisting of a screenshot of the website of Marquee Brands demonstrating common ownership and control of all four named Respondents.

 

FINDINGS

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and

(2)       the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.

 

The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The four marks claimed by Complainant were registered to Complainant as follows:

 

·       SUR LA TABLE: registered to SLT IP Holdings, LP with the USPTO on March 8, 2022 (registration certificate included in Complaint Annex C).

·       STANCE: registered to ST IP Holdings, LP with the EUIPO on November 4, 2022 (registration certificate included in Complaint Annex D).

·       DAKINE: registered to Dakine IP Holdings, LP with the EUIPO on April 12, 2013 (registration certificate included in Complaint Annex E).

·       TOTES: registered to Eden-T IP Holdings, LP with the Canadian Registrar of Trademarks on June 7, 1996 (registration certificate included in Complaint Annex F).

 

Complainant's registrations of its marks as above set forth establish its rights in those marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Each of Respondent's <surlatablehq.shop>, <stancehq.shop>, <dakinehq.shop> and <toteshq.shop> domain names is identical or confusingly similar to the corresponding Complainant mark because each fully incorporates the mark, merely adding the "hq" abbreviation for headquarters and the ".shop" generic top-level domain (gTLD). These changes do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant's marks for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that each of the domain names is identical or confusingly similar to the corresponding Complainant mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.

 

Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      The respondent has used or has made 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; or

(ii)                      the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii)                      the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because (i) it has not been commonly known by the domain names, (ii) it has no affiliation or relationship with Complainant and Complainant has not licensed or permitted Respondent to use its marks, (iii) it is not using the domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because they resolve to websites that mimic and impersonate Complainant, and (iv) Complainant's marks are so well known that the only plausible inference that can be derived is that it registered them to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainants' marks.  These allegations are addressed as follows:

 

The WHOIS information provided to Forum by the registrar lists Albert Reyes as the registrant of domain name 1, Tyler Ramirez as the registrant of domain name 2, Rodney Banks as the registrant of domain name 3, and Ellianna Harwood as the registrant of domain name 4. These names bear no resemblance to the domain names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name.  Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant states that it has not licensed or authorized Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. While evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark is not dispositive, it nevertheless supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

 

Complaint Annex B contains screenshots of the websites to which the domain names resolve, and Complaint Annex H compares pages on Complainant's websites with pages of Respondent's corresponding websites relating to Complainant's marks. Complaint Annex G contains screenshots of Complainant's websites. Respondent's websites do not copy or duplicate exactly the corresponding websites of Complainant, but the look and feel of the websites is somewhat similar and in one case a Respondent website duplicates photo images appearing on the corresponding Complainant site. There is no question, however, that each of Respondent's sites uses the corresponding Complainant's mark and purports to offer the Complainant's goods for sale.  Nowhere do Respondent's sites state or even suggest that they are not sponsored by Complainant. These sites unquestionably represent themselves and pass off as those of Complainant. Passing off as a complainant and offering to sell the complainant's products does not qualify as a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), or as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(c)(iv).  Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [which] 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)."), Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).").

 

Complainant alleges that its marks are so well known that the only plausible inference that can be derived is that Respondent registered them to exploit the goodwill associated with Complainants' marks. Complainant presented no evidence bearing upon the notoriety or fame of any of its marks, however, and these allegations are not proven.

 

Nevertheless, Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Respondent, in turn, has failed to respond to the Complaint and so has neither rebutted Complainant's prima facie showing nor has it come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain names have been registered or are being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:

 

(i)                      circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

(ii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii)                      the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv)         by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.

 

The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name.  Constructive notice does not suffice.

 

In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.

 

The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names in April and May of 2026 (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Annex A show registration dates). Complainant had by then been using its marks at least since the 2022 filing dates for the earliest-registered of the marks, as shown on the EUIPO registration certificates submitted as Complaint Annexes D and E. More tellingly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its marks in order to impersonate them with the domain names. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names and selected them with the intent to target this Complainant.

 

The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell products advertised as those of Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web sites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites. Commercial gain is intended or results from the sale of goods from the website. Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. 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).").

 

Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain names to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith 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.").

 

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).  Because the foregoing evidence amply demonstrates bad faith registration and use, the Panel does not address Complainant's argument with respect to Policy ¶ 2.

 

DECISION

Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.  

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the  <surlatablehq.shop>, <stancehq.shop>, <dakinehq.shop> and <toteshq.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist

July 17, 2026