DECISION

 

WSG VON DUTCH, LLC v. sabrina urner

Claim Number: FA2606002227704

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WSG VON DUTCH, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Gregory Kenyota of Bochner PLLC, New York, USA. Respondent is sabrina urner ("Respondent"), Germany.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vondutch-turkiye.com>, registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu.

 

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 17, 2026; Forum received payment on June 17, 2026.

 

On June 18, 2026, Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vondutch-turkiye.com> domain name is registered with Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu has verified that Respondent is bound by the Hosting Concepts B.V. d/b/a Registrar.eu 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 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@vondutch-turkiye.com. 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 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant WSG Von Dutch, LLC is the owner of all rights in and to certain trademarks for VON DUTCH and registrations thereof. Complainant and its predecessors in interest have offered goods under VON DUTCH since at least as early as June 1996 and now offers such goods under the mark VON DUTCH across a variety of industry sectors. The mark and domain name have become well recognized by consumers as designating Complainant as the source of its goods so marked.

 

The Domain Name is Confusingly Similar to Complainant's Mark. The <vondutch-turkiye.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the VON DUTCH mark in which Complainant has superior rights in that the domain name is a complete and exact reproduction of Complainant's VON DUTCH mark with the geographically descriptive term "Turkiye."

 

Respondent Lacks Rights or Legitimate Interests in the Domain Name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name on January 16, 2026, long after Complainant registered the VON DUTCH mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and long after Complainant began using the VON DUTCH mark. There is no plausible reason for Respondent to have selected the term for use in connection with such goods other than to trade on Complainant's goodwill in the mark. Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant nor is Respondent otherwise authorized to use Complainant's VON DUTCH mark for any purpose. Respondent is not commonly known as "VON DUTCH." Thus, Respondent has not established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The at-issue domain name currently resolves to a website that reproduces the identical VON DUTCH wordmark, misappropriates product photographs taken directly from Complainant's official website at Vondutch.com, and offers for sale apparel and headwear products that directly compete with Complainant's genuine VON DUTCH goods. Respondent is using the at-issue domain name to pass off its website as that of Complainant, deliberately deceiving consumers into believing they are purchasing genuine VON DUTCH products. The counterfeit nature of the products offered on Respondent's website is further evidenced by the prices, which are a fraction of Complainant's official retail prices. Such use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Respondent Registered and Is Using the Domain Name in Bad Faith. Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name primarily to profit from and exploit Complainant's VON DUTCH mark. Respondent has done so by creating a website that deliberately mimics the look and feel of a retail store using Complainant's mark and uses the domain name to lure internet users seeking Complainant's genuine products to a counterfeit goods operation. Respondent's website offers for sale unauthorized products purportedly bearing the VON DUTCH mark at prices substantially below Complainant's official retail prices, falsely suggesting to consumers that the website is affiliated with, sponsored by, or otherwise connected to Complainant. Furthermore, the very nature of Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name evidences bad faith. Respondent knowingly registered the at-issue domain name containing an exact reproduction of the well-known VON DUTCH mark in order to capitalize on consumer recognition of the VON DUTCH mark and its association with clothing. The addition of "Turkiye" is merely a geographically descriptive term that does nothing to distinguish the at-issue domain name from Complainant's VON DUTCH mark and does not diminish the likelihood of confusion created by Respondent's registration and use of the domain name. Respondent registered the at-issue domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's VON DUTCH mark since the resolving website displays Complainant's VON DUTCH mark and purports to offer Complainant's products for sale. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant's rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). There is no plausible circumstance under which Respondent could legitimately register or use the at-issue domain name and that, therefore, the domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the VON DUTCH mark.

 

Complainant's rights in VON DUTCH predate Respondent's registration of <vondutch-turkiye.com>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the domain name to address a website appearing as if it is affiliated with Complainant's and there offers VON DUTCH 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 registered its VON DUTCH trademark with the USPTO. Such registration 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 <vondutch-turkiye.com> domain name consists of Complainant's VON DUTCH trademark less its domain name impermissible space, followed by the geo-political term "turkiye" with all followed by the confusing similarity analysis irrelevant ".com" top-level. The differences between Complainant's trademark and the at-issue domain name fail to distinguish Respondent's domain name from Complainant's VON DUTCH trademark. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent's <vondutch-turkiye.com> 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 <vondutch-turkiye.com> leads to identifying the registrant as "sabrina urner" and the record contains no evidence that tends to prove that Respondent is commonly known by <vondutch-turkiye.com> 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 appeared like it may be Complainant's genuine website. The website displays Complainant's stylized VON DUTCH trademark and word mark, and images of an array of Complainant's products purportedly for sale at a deep discount. Respondent's use of <vondutch-turkiye.com> to pose as Complainant and misdirect internet users to Respondent's imposter 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 <vondutch-turkiye.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent uses <vondutch-turkiye.com> to address a website looking like it might be Complainant's official website or at least sponsored by Complainant. There Respondent displays Complainant's VON DUTCH mark, logo, and images of a variety of Complainant's products with substantially discounted pricing. Respondent's use of <vondutch-turkiye.com> to pass itself off as Complainant and feign being a legitimate 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 <vondutch-turkiye.com> domain name and related website, and Complainant's VON DUTCH trademark. Respondent's use of <vondutch-turkiye.com> 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 VON DUTCH mark when Respondent registered <vondutch-turkiye.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's VON DUTCH trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address an online store pretending to legitimately offer Complainant's products for sale. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in VON DUTCH 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 <vondutch-turkiye.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 15, 2026