DECISION

 

Twin Star International, Inc. v. yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.

Claim Number: FA2607002233099

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Twin Star International, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew J. Cavanagh of McDonald Hopkins LLC, Ohio, USA. Respondent is yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <walkeredisoncabinet.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On July 19, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 28, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 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@walkeredisoncabinet.com. Also on July 28, 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 August 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is written in Chinese, which would ordinarily make Chinese the language of this proceeding under Rule 11(a). Complainant requests, however, that the Panel exercise its discretion under Rules 10(b) and (c) to determine that English be the language of these proceedings. In support, Complainant shows that the website resolving from the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name is composed entirely in English; that the domain name itself combines Complainant's English-language WALKER EDISON mark with the English word "cabinet," neither of which carries any meaning in the Chinese language; that the domain name is rendered in unaccented Roman characters rather than Chinese characters; and that it employs the ".com" gTLD, which is commonly used by international entities operating English-language websites. See Expedia, Inc. v. zhuo kai long, FA 2055656 (Forum Sept. 5, 2023) (finding English to be the appropriate language of the proceeding where the disputed domain name reflected Complainant's English-language mark, used unaccented Roman characters, and employed the ".com" gTLD).

 

The Panel further notes that Respondent has been the named respondent in numerous prior UDRP proceedings decided in 2025 and 2026 involving domain names that likewise incorporated English-language trademarks, in each of which the panel determined that English was the appropriate language of the proceeding notwithstanding a Chinese registration agreement, and in which Respondent neither appeared nor objected to that determination. This history further confirms that Respondent has the ability to understand and communicate in English. Finally, Forum has provided notice of this proceeding to Respondent in both Chinese and English, yet Respondent has not submitted a Response or otherwise participated in this proceeding. In light of the foregoing, and taking into account the delay and expense that would be occasioned by requiring Complainant to translate its submissions into Chinese, the Panel determines that English shall be the language of this proceeding.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it and its predecessors-in-interest have used the WALKER EDISON mark in connection with furniture, cabinets, lighting, rugs, décor, a wide range of other home furnishings, and the online retail sale of those and related products since at least 2006. It also owns numerous U.S. trademark registrations for the mark, which it uses in connection with its own website at <walkeredison.com>.

 

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WALKER EDISON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, adding only the generic term "cabinet" and the ".com" gTLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not authorized to use the mark and is not commonly known by the domain name, and Respondent instead uses the domain name to operate a website that copies Complainant's mark and logo, falsely claims to be the manufacturer of genuine WALKER EDISON products, and claims to offer Complainant's products at deeply discounted prices, all of which is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain, pointing to Respondent's use of Complainant's mark and logo, its false claim of being the "actual producer" of WALKER EDISON goods, a footer copyright notice attributing the website to "Walker Edison," Respondent's history as a named respondent in numerous other UDRP proceedings, and Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal its identity.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Although the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is in Chinese, Respondent has demonstrated an ability to understand English, and this proceeding may accordingly be conducted in English;

-       Complainant owns registered trademark rights in its WALKER EDISON mark, and the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as it is not commonly known by the domain name and it is used to host a website that impersonates and passes itself off as originating from Complainant; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, where Respondent's website impersonates Complainant and deceives consumers for commercial gain.

 

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 asserts rights in the WALKER EDISON mark through registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"), including Reg. No. 4346668 (dated June 4, 2013), Reg. No. 5740413 (dated Apr. 30, 2019), and Reg. No. 6776632 (dated June 28, 2022). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."). Here, Complainant has provided copies of its actual registration certificates. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in its WALKER EDISON mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its WALKER EDISON mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the generic term "cabinet", which describes a category of goods that Complainant sells under the mark, and the ".com" gTLD. The addition of a generic or descriptive term, particularly one describing Complainant's own goods, together with a gTLD, typically does not distinguish a domain name from an asserted mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See PFI HOLDCO LLC v. Kenneth Nicolas Bany, FA 2201239 (Forum Mar. 2, 2026) (finding confusing similarity where "the disputed domain name <lakewoodjuice.com> incorporates the LAKEWOOD mark in its entirety and merely adds the term 'juice,' which directly describes Complainant's goods"); see also Miranda Lambert v. Buzhaochun, FA 2206543 (Forum Mar. 24, 2026) (<idyllwindboots.com> found confusingly similar to the IDYLLWIND mark as used for cowboy boots). As the WALKER EDISON mark is fully incorporated in the disputed domain name, and only the generic yet highly relevant term "cabinet" and the ".com" gTLD are added, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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.").

 

Complainant first argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name because it is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. WHOIS information may be examined to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information bore no resemblance to the domain name); see also Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (lack of evidence that a respondent is authorized to use a complainant's mark supports a finding that respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Here, the registrar-disclosed WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "yongbo," with an organization name of "Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.", neither bearing any resemblance to the disputed domain name. Complainant further states that "Respondent is not affiliated or associated with Complainant in any way, and Complainant has not given Respondent any permission, license, or authorization to use the WALKER EDISON marks or the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name." Respondent has not appeared in these proceedings to rebut this assertion. Additionally, the fact that Complainant's mark and logo appear on Respondent's website does not indicate that Respondent is thereby commonly known by the domain name, where such use appears designed to create consumer confusion rather than to reflect a genuine identity. See Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy."). Accordingly, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant further argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because the resolving website impersonates Complainant and passes itself off as a genuine WALKER EDISON site. Such conduct is neither a bona fide offering nor a legitimate fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Guess? IP Holder L.P. et al. v. Client Care et al., FA 2064207 (Forum Nov. 2, 2023) ("Respondent's confusingly similar domain names address a website that mimics Complainant's official website … [and] purports to offer counterfeit clothing, apparel, and accessories for sale, while displaying Complainant's trademark…"). Complainant's evidence shows that the <walkeredisoncabinet.com> website prominently displays Complainant's WALKER EDISON mark and graphic logo, and shows images of various furniture products, below each of which appears one price in a strike-through grey font followed by a significantly lower price in a red font. The page further refers to Complainant in the first person (e.g., "Redefine your home with our curated selection of modern pieces", and "For over 10 years we've been the trusted OEM partner behind renowned brands…"). The site's "About Us" page claims that Respondent is the "actual producer" of WALKER EDISON goods offering "Factory-Direct Value," and all pages on the site bear the footer "©Walker Edison". All of this creates the false impression that the website is owned or operated by Complainant.

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain. Respondent's website displays Complainant's WALKER EDISON mark and graphic logo, falsely claims that Respondent is the "actual producer" of WALKER EDISON goods offered at "Factory-Direct" prices, and bears a footer copyright notice attributing the website to "Walker Edison." This conduct demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the WALKER EDISON mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name, and that it registered and is using the domain name to deceive consumers into believing the website is operated by, or affiliated with, Complainant, in violation of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Indian Industries, Inc. d/b/a Escalade Sports v. jianping liang, FA 2074614 (Forum Jan. 5, 2024) (hosting a website at a domain name that impersonates complainant's business constitutes bad faith registration and use). See also Guess? IP Holder L.P. et al. v. Client Care et al., supra ("Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the notoriety of Complainant's trademark and from Respondent's use of the domain names to mimic Complainant's genuine website and then offer counterfeit versions of Complainant's GUESS? products for sale.").

 

The record also shows that Respondent has been the named respondent in numerous other UDRP proceedings decided in 2025 and 2026, each resulting in transfer of the disputed domain name to the complainant. See, e.g., Senoret Chemical Company v. 杨勇波 (yongbo), 博思云科技（浙江）有限公司 (Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd.), D2026-2822 (WIPO Aug. 4, 2026); MacKenzie-Childs Aurora LLC v. yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd., FA 2219304 (Forum June 2, 2026); Dan Foam ApS v. 杨勇波 (yongbo), Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co.,

Ltd., D2025-4677 (WIPO Dec. 31, 2025). Such a documented pattern of cybersquatting further supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). See Home Depot Product Authority, LLC v. Muaz Arain, FA 2201617 (Forum Feb. 18, 2026) (a respondent's cybersquatting history "reveals a pattern of domain name abuse and suggests Respondent's bad faith in the instant case"). The Panel finds that Respondent's pattern of cybersquatting conduct does provide evidence that it has acted in bad faith and prevented Complainant from reflecting its mark in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).

 

Finally, Complainant claims that Respondent's use of a privacy registration service to conceal its identity, considered together with the foregoing circumstances, further supports a finding of bad faith. The intentional use of a true privacy service may indicate bad faith. See, e.g., Breeze Aviation Group, Inc. v. saviour umoh, FA 1999828 (Forum July 12, 2022) (use of a privacy registration service further evidences bad faith in light of other facts). Here it appears that it is the Registrar who has applied privacy protection to the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name as the underlying information that has been revealed to the Forum shows the name of the actual Registrant, i.e., yongbo / Boss Cloud Technology (Zhejiang) Co., Ltd. Thus, the Panel does not find that the use of privacy protection by the disputed domain name can be used to further indicate bad faith under the circumstances of this particular case.

 

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 <walkeredisoncabinet.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: August 20, 2026