DECISION

 

Evenflo Company, Inc. and Evenflo Company Holdings, LLC v. Aishwin Vikhona

Claim Number: FA2607002233586

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Evenflo Company, Inc. and Evenflo Company Holdings, LLC ("Complainant"), United States, represented by Chloe R. Conway of Brooks Kushman P.C., United States. Respondent is Aishwin Vikhona ("Respondent"), India.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <evemflo.com>, registered with Unstoppable Domains 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 E. Sorkin as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 20, 2026; Forum received payment on July 20, 2026.

 

On July 21, 2026, Unstoppable Domains Inc. confirmed by email to Forum that the <evemflo.com> domain name is registered with Unstoppable Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Unstoppable Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Unstoppable Domains 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 24, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 13, 2026 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via email to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@evemflo.com. Also on July 24, 2026, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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.

 

Forum received informal email correspondence from Respondent on July 24, 2026.

 

Having received no formal response from Respondent, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.

 

On August 14, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David E. Sorkin 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: CONSENT TO TRANSFER

In an email message to Forum, Respondent stated as follows:

 

I do not intend to contest the complaint and consent to the transfer of Evemflo.com to the Complainant. This consent is provided without admission of any allegations or wrongdoing.

 

Where a respondent consents to a transfer of the disputed domain name, the Panel may decide to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the domain name. However, where the consent to transfer is itself offered in bad faith (for example, to permit a serial cybersquatter to avoid having adverse findings entered against it), the Panel may proceed with the traditional analysis notwithstanding the Respondent's request. See, e.g., JLB Eatery Group, LLC v. JR Irvin, FA 2229658 (Forum July 28, 2026) (ordering transfer based upon consent); AWGI, LLC v. Brume Egbagba, FA 2228942 (Forum July 21, 2026) (addressing merits of dispute where domain name was used for website that mimicked complainant's website and displayed complainant's marks).

 

The Panel considers it appropriate to address the merits of the Complaint in this proceeding notwithstanding Respondent's willingness to transfer the domain name.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is a Delaware corporation and its wholly owned subsidiary. Complainant is a manufacturer and retailer of infant and children's products, including car seats, strollers, and other juvenile items. Complainant has used EVENFLO in connection with such products for many years and owns longstanding United States trademark registrations for EVENFLO in standard character form, along with registrations in other jurisdictions around the world.

 

The disputed domain name <evemflo.com> was registered in November 2025. The name is registered in the name of a privacy registration service on behalf of Respondent. The domain name is being used to redirect users through one or more intermediate locations before ultimately directing them to Complainant's website. Complainant alleges that the domain name formerly resolved to a website that mimicked Complainant's website, displayed Complainant's EVENFLO mark, and purported to offer EVENFLO products for sale. Complainant states that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use Complainant's mark.

 

Complainant contends on the above grounds that the disputed domain name <evemflo.com> is confusingly similar to its EVENFLO mark; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights; that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, § 4.3 (version 3.1, 2026), available at https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview; UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, §§ 0.2, 0.8 (updated June 2, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org/; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (dismissing complaint where complainant failed to "produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The disputed domain name <evemflo.com> corresponds to Complainant's registered EVENFLO trademark, substituting a letter "M" for the "N" and adding the ".com" top-level domain. These alterations do not substantially diminish the similarity between the domain name and Complainant's mark. See, e.g., Evenflo Co., Inc. & Evenflo Co. Holdings, LLC v. DEBORAH JANE WALTIER / Dehlin Lars gustav tobias / James Lucas / Simon Mason, FA 2133687 (Forum Feb. 7, 2025) (finding <evenflo-revolve.com> and other domain names confusingly similar to EVENFLO); 7-Eleven, Inc. v. daves crab, FA 1936038 (Forum Apr. 5, 2021) (finding <7elevem.com> confusingly similar to 7-ELEVEN); Licensing IP International S.à.r.l. v. Domain Administrator / Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, FA 1886922 (Forum Apr. 5, 2020) (finding <youporm.com> confusingly similar to YOUPORN). The Panel considers the disputed domain name to be confusingly similar to a mark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under the Policy, the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and then the burden shifts to the Respondent to come forward with concrete evidence of such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Productions, Inc. v. Entertainment Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

The disputed domain name corresponds to a misspelling of Complainant's registered mark without authorization. It has been used for a website that attempted to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain, and to redirect users to Complainant's website without authorization, also likely for Respondent's commercial gain. Such use does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests under the Policy. See, e.g., Evenflo Co., Inc. & Evenflo Co. Holdings, LLC v. tu hu, FA 2128232 (Forum Dec. 29, 2024) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used for website mimicking complainant's website and offering unauthorized versions of its products); Course Hero, Inc. v. DOMAIN SHIELD / REGISTRATION PRIVATE, FA 1983379 (Forum Mar. 7, 2022) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used to redirect users to complainant's website, presumably for respondent's commercial gain).

 

Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of such rights or interests. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has sustained its burden of proving that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Under paragraph 4(b)(iii) of the Policy, bad faith may be shown by evidence that Respondent registered the disputed domain name "primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor." Under paragraph 4(b)(iv), bad faith may be shown by evidence that "by using the domain name, [Respondent] intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [Respondent's] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [Respondent's] web site or location or of a product or service on [Respondent's] web site or location."

 

Respondent used a privacy registration service and what appears to be incomplete underlying registration information to register a domain name corresponding to a misspelling of Complainant's registered mark, in what the Panel considers to be an instance of typosquatting. The domain name has been used for a website that mimicked Complainant's site and attempted to pass off as Complainant for Respondent's commercial gain, and to redirect users to Complainant's website via one or more intermediate locations, likely generating revenue for Respondent in the form of affiliate commissions. Such circumstances are indicative of bad faith registration and use under the Policy. See, e.g., Evenflo Co., Inc. & Evenflo Co. Holdings, LLC v. tu hu, supra (mimicking); Course Hero, Inc. v. DOMAIN SHIELD / REGISTRATION PRIVATE, supra (redirection). The Panel so finds.

 

DECISION

Having considered the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <evemflo.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist

Dated: August 14, 2026