DECISION

 

Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. sheng shulan

Claim Number: FA2607002232620

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Home Depot Product Authority, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Laura Lamansky of Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Illinois, USA. Respondent is sheng shulan ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <hdxcompany.com>, registered with Realtime Register B.V.

 

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 July 14, 2026; Forum received payment on July 14, 2026.

 

On July 15, 2026, Realtime Register B.V. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <hdxcompany.com> domain name is registered with Realtime Register B.V. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Realtime Register B.V. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Realtime Register B.V. 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 10, 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@hdxcompany.com. Also on July 21, 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 August 11, 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Over the years, Complainant has grown into a world renowned and highly respected company and brand, currently operating approximately 2,300 stores throughout the United States and its territories, Canada, and Mexico. Complainant has used the famous HDX mark continuously in U.S. commerce and in other jurisdictions in connection with a wide variety of consumer home improvement products, including, but not limited to, storage and organization, and other miscellaneous household utility and home improvement goods for more than a decade, with use dating back to as early as 2012. Complainant holds rights in the HDX word and logo marks through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,280,880, registered January 22, 2013, in Class 20; Reg. No. 4,562,693, registered July 8, 2014, in Class 3). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HDX mark because it incorporates the entire mark, merely adding the generic term "company," and the ".com" gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed any rights to Respondent to use the HDX marks. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name is used to impersonate Complainant or falsely suggest authorization by Complainant by displaying an identical version of Complainant's HDX logo mark on the active website to which the disputed domain name resolves. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for purposes of redirecting visitors to third party pages selling goods directly competitive with those offered by Complainant under its HDX marks, where Respondent can profit from sponsored links.

 

iii) Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name is disrupting Complainant's business. The disputed domain name resolves to an active website promoting Respondent's own purported household utility and home improvement products, which, if actually offered, directly compete with Complainant's HDX branded products. By directing traffic away from Complainant's official website, the disputed domain name is disrupting Complainant's business for Respondent's own commercial gain. Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name to pass itself off as an authorized seller of HDX branded products. Respondent uses misleading elements to divert users to Amazon, Walmart, and other third party sites, where competing products are offered for sale. Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HDX mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the HDX word and logo marks through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,280,880, registered January 22, 2013, in Class 20; Reg. No. 4,562,693, registered July 8, 2014, in Class 3).

 

3. Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that promotes and advertises products of the same type as those offered by Complainant under its HDX mark; the website prominently features Complainant's HDX mark, including several images that show the HDX mark affixed to products; the website contains multiple references to Complainant; the website's contact page lists Complainant's mailing address; the website falsely shows Complainant as the owner of the copyright for the website in the footer of the site; and Respondent uses these misleading elements to divert users to Amazon, Walmart, and other third party sites, where competing products are offered 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

Complainant claims rights in the HDX word and logo marks through registration with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,280,880, registered January 22, 2013 in class 20; Reg. No. 4,562,693, registered July 8, 2014 in class 3). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is a valid showing of rights in a mark. Since Complainant provides evidence of registration of the HDX marks with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the marks under Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <hdxcompany.com> is confusingly similar to Complainant's HDX marks because it contains Complainant's mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term "company" and the ".com" gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's HDX mark per 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 contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not authorized or licensed to Respondent any rights in the HDX mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The unmasked WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "sheng shulan." There is nothing in the records to suggest that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for any bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant. The Panel notes that passing off as Complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the Policy Paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name for a bona fide offering or legitimate noncommercial use when the resolving website featured the complainant's mark and related content); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (holding that no bona fide offering or legitimate use existed where the respondent's site sold products branded with the complainant's mark without authorization).

 

Based on the screenshot of the disputed domain name's resolving website, the Panel notes that Respondent uses the disputed domain name for a website that promotes and advertises products of the same type as those offered by Complainant under its HDX mark; the website prominently features Complainant's HDX mark, including several images that show the HDX mark affixed to products; the website contains multiple references to Complainant; the website's contact page lists Complainant's mailing address; the website falsely shows Complainant as the owner of the copyright for the website in the footer of the site; and Respondent uses these misleading elements to divert users to Amazon, Walmart, and other third party sites, where competing products are offered for sale.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name for its own financial gain by passing off as Complainant, or as a party associated with Complainant, does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial use under the Policy Paragraphs 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

The Panel concludes that Complainant has made out a prima facie case arising from the considerations above. All of these matters establish the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain name constitute bad faith, as it resolves to a website displaying the HDX marks in a manner that impersonates Complainant and mimics a legitimate site. The Panel finds that passing off as Complainant while offering competing products can demonstrate bad faith registration and use under the Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seems to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)"); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the domain to pass off as the complainant and offer counterfeit goods).

 

As previously noted, Respondent impersonates Complainant by prominently featuring Complainant's HDX mark and using various fraudulent and misleading elements to offer unauthorized Complainant's products and to divert Internet users to Amazon, Walmart, and other third party sites, where competing products are offered for sale. The Panel finds that these passing off activities disrupt Complainant's business for commercial gain. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under the Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith, with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HDX mark, as shown by the domain name's use and passing off behavior.

 

The Panel notes that Complainant has grown into an internationally known and highly respected company and brand, currently operating approximately 2,300 stores throughout the United States and its territories, Canada, and Mexico. In fiscal year 2025 alone, Complainant had worldwide sales of $164.7 billion (USD). Complainant's HDX marks have been used for more than a decade, with use dating back to as early as 2012. As a result of Complainant's exclusive, longstanding use and extensive marketing, advertising, and promotional efforts, Complainant's HDX marks became well known prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel infers, due to the notoriety of Complainant's HDX marks and Respondent's passing off actions, that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the HDX marks, demonstrating bad faith registration under the Policy Paragraph 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 <hdxcompany.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 11, 2026