DECISION

 

WalkingCo LLC v. Ethan Morgan

Claim Number: FA2607002230462

 

PARTIES

Complainant is WalkingCo LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Melissa S. LaBauve of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Ethan Morgan ("Respondent"), Utah, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <shopbigdogs.shop> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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.

 

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

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 1, 2026; Forum received payment on July 1, 2026.

 

On July 2, 2026, Dynadot Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <shopbigdogs.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc. 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 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@shopbigdogs.shop. Also on July 6, 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 28, 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 domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant alleges:

 

That it offers men's, women's, and children's apparel, accessories, and related lifestyle products, and has used the word mark BIG DOGS and associated design marks (collectively, the "Marks") in commerce since at least 1983. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the Marks, including U.S. Reg. No. 1,459,306, most of which have attained incontestable status, and it owns and uses the domain name <bigdogs.com>.

 

That the Disputed Domain Name <shopbigdogs.shop> is confusingly similar to the BIG DOGS mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the generic or descriptive term "shop" together with the ".shop" gTLD, neither of which distinguishes the Disputed Domain Name from the mark; the combination instead creates the misleading impression of an official or authorized online presence of Complainant.

 

That Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by it, is not affiliated with Complainant, and has never been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Marks. The website resolving from the Disputed Domain Name displays Complainant's BIG DOGS logo and offers BIG DOGS-branded clothing at steeply discounted prices, 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).

 

That Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered it in June 2026, decades after Complainant first registered the BIG DOGS mark in 1987, and the presence of Complainant's branding and products on the resolving website shows that Respondent knew of Complainant and selected the Disputed Domain Name in order to create a false impression of affiliation or endorsement, thereby disrupting Complainant's business and attracting Internet users for commercial gain under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv).

 

That Respondent's registration of the Disputed Domain Name behind a privacy service, concealing its identity, is a further indication of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant, WalkingCo LLC, sells apparel, accessories, and related lifestyle goods under the BIG DOGS word and design marks (the "Marks"). The record contains certificates for seven registrations of the Marks on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the earliest being U.S. Reg. No. 1,459,306, issued September 29, 1987, for clothing in International Class 25 and reciting first use in commerce on July 13, 1984. The later certificates are U.S. Reg. No. 1,842,765 (July 5, 1994), U.S. Reg. No. 2,206,261 (November 24, 1998), U.S. Reg. No. 2,295,456 (November 30, 1999), U.S. Reg. No. 2,551,515 (March 26, 2002), U.S. Reg. No. 2,705,708 (April 15, 2003), covering on-line retail store services, and U.S. Reg. No. 2,710,307 (April 29, 2003), for the BIG DOGS mark with a dog design. The certificates issued in the names of earlier proprietors, the most recent being Big Dog Holdings, Inc., and they record no assignment to Complainant; Complainant's assertion that it owns the Marks is uncontested, and the Panel accepts it on the record before it. Screenshots in the record show Complainant offering graphic tees and related apparel under the Marks at its website at <bigdogs.com>, which dates the brand from 1983; the site's footer carries the notice "©2024 BIG DOG LICENSING LLC."

 

The WHOIS record obtained on June 22, 2026, shows that the Disputed Domain Name was created on June 4, 2026, and that the registrant of record was then Dynadot Privacy Service. The Registrar's verification of July 2, 2026, confirms Respondent, Ethan Morgan of Salt Lake City, Utah, as the underlying registrant. Nothing in the record suggests that Respondent has been known as Big Dogs or Shop Big Dogs, and Complainant's statements that Respondent is unaffiliated with it and was never licensed or authorized to use the Marks stand uncontested.

 

Screenshots captured on June 15 and June 22, 2026, show that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to an online clothing store (the "Respondent's Website") that presents itself as Complainant's own. The Respondent's Website reproduces Complainant's BIG DOGS logo, the dog device and stylized wordmark carrying a registration symbol, at the head of every page; its browser page title reads "Graphic Tees | The Official Website"; and its home page invites visitors to shop an "official collection" of graphic tees and "vintage-inspired streetwear" under the banner "Classic Style Since 1983." Its store pages list BIG DOGS-branded apparel, including garments carrying Complainant's own graphics, at discounts marked 65 percent off, with items priced at $29.99 shown reduced to $10.50, and take orders by credit card, PayPal, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. Its contact page directs customers to support@bigdogs.com, an address at Complainant's own domain. The footer of each page reads "© 2026 Big Dogs. All rights reserved." Nowhere does the Respondent's Website identify its operator or disclaim a connection with Complainant.

 

On this record, and on Respondent's default, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with knowledge of Complainant and the Marks, and has used it to hold the Respondent's Website out to consumers as Complainant's own online store.

 

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's rights in the BIG DOGS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) rest on the registrations on the Principal Register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office described in the FINDINGS, whose ownership the Panel has accepted on the uncontested record, the earliest of which issued on September 29, 1987. A nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of trademark rights under the first element. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.2.1.

 

The Disputed Domain Name <shopbigdogs.shop> contains the BIG DOGS mark in full, less the space the domain name system cannot carry, preceded by the term "shop." The mark remains recognizable within the string, and the prefix does nothing to separate the Disputed Domain Name from the mark: it describes the act of buying the very goods for which the mark is registered. See Tommy John, Inc. v. huapusjmn huapusjmn, FA 2218574 (Forum May 24, 2026) (finding <shoptommyjohn.shop> confusingly similar to the TOMMY JOHN mark, the domain name consisting of the mark prefixed with the suggestive term "shop" under the ".shop" top level).

 

The ".shop" gTLD is a technical requirement of registration and is disregarded in the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.11.1.

 

The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's BIG DOGS mark 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, whereupon the burden of production shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of such rights or interests. See WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 2.1.

 

The registrant disclosed by the Registrar is "Ethan Morgan," a name bearing no relation to the Disputed Domain Name, and the record shows no use by Respondent of "Big Dogs" or "Shop Big Dogs" as a name of its own. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and holds no license or authorization to use the Marks. Respondent is therefore not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information listed "Operi Manaha" and nothing else in the record suggested that the respondent was authorized to use the mark).

 

Respondent's use of the Disputed Domain Name confers no rights or legitimate interests either. The Respondent's Website takes Complainant's logo, its 1983 origin date, and its product graphics, describes its wares as an official collection, offers apparel under Complainant's mark at discounts of 65 percent, and gives Complainant's own customer-service address as its point of contact. That is impersonation rather than trade under a name of Respondent's own, and it 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). See Netflix, Inc. v. Irpan Panjul / 3corp.inc, FA 1741976 (Forum Aug. 22, 2017) (use of a domain name to mimic the look and feel of a complainant's official website while offering unauthorized content under the complainant's mark is not a bona fide offering of goods or services and is not a legitimate noncommercial or fair use).

 

Complainant has made out its prima facie case, and Respondent, having filed no Response, has come forward with nothing to rebut it. 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

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on June 4, 2026, thirty-nine years after Complainant's earliest registration of the BIG DOGS mark issued and more than four decades after the first use in commerce recited in that registration. The content of the Respondent's Website, described in the FINDINGS above, settles the question of knowledge: a storefront assembled from Complainant's own logo, origin date, graphics, and customer-service address could not have been built in ignorance of the Marks. The Panel finds that Respondent knew of Complainant and the Marks when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, and chose a name that would be read as Complainant's.

 

By operating a storefront that holds itself out as Complainant's, under a domain name containing Complainant's mark, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's Website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website and of the goods offered on it, within 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 the respondent directed Internet users to a website that mimicked the complainant's own in order to confuse users into believing that the respondent was the complainant or was otherwise affiliated with it). The same conduct draws consumers looking for Complainant's goods to a competing point of sale, and so disrupts Complainant's business within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See True Value Company, L.L.C. v. Xu Yongqin, FA 2075718 (Forum Jan. 11, 2024) (use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant and to offer competing or counterfeit versions of its products may evidence bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)).

 

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name behind a privacy service, and its identity emerged only upon the Registrar's disclosure. That circumstance is not by itself bad faith, but here it corroborates the conclusion the Panel has drawn from the content of the Respondent's Website. See Robert Half International Inc. v. robert arran, FA 1764367 (Forum Feb. 5, 2018).

 

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 <shopbigdogs.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David L. Kreider, Panelist

Dated: July 28, 2026