DECISION

 

CW Brands LLC v. ngjxbar wuhgkrhzrcmt

Claim Number: FA2606002230293

 

PARTIES

Complainant is CW Brands LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Mark S. Kaufman of KAUFMAN & KAHN, LLP, New York, USA. Respondent is ngjxbar wuhgkrhzrcmt ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <coldwatercreek-official.com>, 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 30, 2026; Forum received payment on June 30, 2026.

 

On July 1, 2026, West263 International Limited confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <coldwatercreek-official.com> 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 July 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 27, 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@coldwatercreek-official.com. Also on July 6, 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 July 28, 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.

 

Complainant operates its global business in English. Respondent's at-issue domain name targets Complainant COLDWATER CREEK trademark, a mark containing English words and incorporates such words, as well as the English word "official," into the at-issue domain name. Furthermore, the website addressed by the at-issue domain name is in English and thus caters to English speaking internet users. 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:

 

The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights. The trademarks on which the Amended Complaint is based (the COLDWATER CREEK marks), are registered in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) as wells as with other national registrars worldwide. The at-issue domain name consists of the same two words as Complainant's trademark, plus the additional word "Official." Such addition does not change the overall meaning and impression of the domain name and only serves to confuse consumers who are misled to think that Respondent uses Complainant's trademark with Complainant's authorization or consent.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no evidence of the Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the at-issue domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Rather, the website to which the domain name resolves mimics Complainant's website and purports to sell the same goods and services as Complainant. Respondent has not been commonly known by the at-issue domain name and has not acquired any trademark or service mark rights in COLDWATER CREEK. The Respondent is not making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name and instead has the intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers to the <coldwatercreek-official.com> website or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue. Indeed, where the web site attached to the at-issue domain name uses the Complainant's COLDWATER CREEK mark in its logo form as a masthead to suggest that it is the site is operated by or authorized by the Complainant when it is not", such use is deceptive and confusing and does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods and services.

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By registering the at-issue domain name and linking it to a website that purports to be Complainant's own website and selling the same type of products as Complainant, Respondent "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 Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent's web site or location or of a product or service on the Respondent's web site or location. Respondent's offering for sale goods or services associated with a trademark, where the at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the trademark, without permission from the trademark owner, creates a likelihood of confusion.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the COLDWATER CREEK mark.

 

Complainant's rights in COLDWATER CREEK predate Respondent's registration of <coldwatercreek-official.com>

 

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 purports to offer Complainant's merchandise for sale.

 

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 identical to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has USPTO and other national registrations worldwide for its COLDWATER CREEK trademark. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Thermo Electron Corp. v. Xu, FA 713851 (Forum July 12, 2006) (finding that the complainants had established rights in marks where the marks were registered with a national trademark authority).

 

Respondent's <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name contains Complainant's COLDWATER CREEK trademark less its domain name impermissible space; followed by an irrelevant hyphen and the descriptive term "official" with all followed by the ".com" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's trademark and Respondent's domain name are insufficient to distinguish one from the other for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent's <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GUITAR CENTER trademark 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.")

 

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, absent evidence of Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances 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 interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.").

 

WHOIS information for <coldwatercreek-official.com> leads to finding that "ngjxbar wuhgkrhzrcmt" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is otherwise known by <coldwatercreek-official.com>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). 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 confusingly similar <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name to address a website that offers to sell products and services like those offered by Complainant. Respondent is likely benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent's <coldwatercreek-official.com> website. Respondent's use of <coldwatercreek-official.com> in this manner is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <coldwatercreek-official.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

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

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <coldwatercreek-official.com> website. There, the confusingly similar domain name together with its associated website deceives internet users into falsely believing that the at-issue domain name and website are sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Like Complainant's genuine website, Respondent's <coldwatercreek-official.com> website offers COLDWATER CREEK related merchandise for sale. Respondent's use of <coldwatercreek-official.com> is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name and Complainant's COLDWATER CREEK trademark. Respondent's use of the <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <coldwatercreek-official.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent's competing website); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the COLDWATER CREEK mark when Respondent registered <coldwatercreek-official.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent given the mark's worldwide notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to pass itself off as Complainant. 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).

 

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 <coldwatercreek-official.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: July 28, 2026