DECISION

 

Clover II Corporation v. Geovanna Mejia / Clover jewerly

Claim Number: FA2607002235444

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Clover II Corporation ("Complainant"), represented by David H. Siegel of Norris McLaughlin, P.A., New York, USA. Respondent is Geovanna Mejia / Clover jewerly ("Respondent"), Kentucky, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <cloverjewerly.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.

 

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 28, 2026; Forum received payment on July 28, 2026.

 

On July 29, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <cloverjewerly.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows 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 31, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 20, 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@cloverjewerly.com. Also on July 31, 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 21, 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Clover II Corporation, designs, sources, distributes, wholesales, and sells finished karat gold jewelry and bullion products through wholesale, retail, private-label, and direct-to-consumer channels. It owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Reg. No. 1683748 for the mark CLOVER, and it operates websites at the <cloverjewelry.com> and <clover2corp.com> domain names.

 

Complainant contends that the <cloverjewerly.com> domain name, registered on July 20, 2025, is confusingly similar to its CLOVER mark because it contains that mark in its entirety and adds only the term "jewerly", a misspelling of the word "jewelry," which describes Complainant's goods, together with the ".com" TLD, neither of which distinguishes the disputed domain name from the mark.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, has never been licensed or otherwise authorized to use the CLOVER mark, and uses the domain name to divert internet users to a website that prominently displays the CLOVER mark and offers purportedly 18K gold jewelry at prices between USD $22.00 and $29.00. Complainant states that these items compete with the gold jewelry that it sells and doubts that they are genuine 18K gold, and it notes that the website discloses no name, address, or other information by which a visitor could identify its operator.

 

Finally, Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name is a typosquatted version of Complainant's own <cloverjewelry.com> domain name, transposing the letters "l" and "r" so that Internet users who mistype or misread Complainant's domain name are diverted to Respondent's website. That website displays the CLOVER mark at the head of each page and in the copyright notice at its footer, and refers to itself throughout as "Clover Jewelry," all of which Complainant says is calculated to pass Respondent off as Complainant, to divert Internet traffic away from Complainant and its authorized retailers, and to disrupt Complainant's business.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

-       Complainant owns rights to the CLOVER trademark and the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

-       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name it is used to host an online store that purports to sell competing jewelry which is suspected to be counterfeit; and

-       The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where Respondent had prior knowledge of Complainant's mark and based on the above-mentioned activity.

 

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 CLOVER mark based upon its ownership of a USPTO registration. Ownership of a nationally registered trademark prima facie satisfies the threshold requirement of having trademark rights for purposes of 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 provides a copy of its USPTO Registration Certificate¹ and so the Panel is satisfied that Complainant holds rights in the CLOVER mark.

 

Next, the disputed domain name consists of the CLOVER mark in its entirety followed by the term "jewerly" and the ".com" TLD. Where, as here, the asserted mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms, whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise, does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the generic top-level domain is most often disregarded as a standard registration requirement. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."). The added term here is an obvious misspelling of the word "jewelry," which names the very goods for which the CLOVER mark is registered, and such a term reinforces rather than dispels the connection between the disputed domain name and Complainant's mark. See Fenix International Limited c/o Walters Law Group v. Prc Maru, D2021-3255 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2021) ("Finally, the use of the word 'premium' in the disputed [onlyfanspremium.site] domain name coupled with the Complainant's trademark enhances not reduces confusion.")

 

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights and that Complainant has satisfied 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").

 

The first example, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), is where, before any notice of the dispute, the respondent used or made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Here the disputed domain name resolves to an online store offering for sale gold jewelry of the same kind as that for which the CLOVER mark is registered. The top of the page displays Complainant's "CLOVER JEWELRY" logo, various jewelry products are supposedly offered for sale at deeply discounted prices, and the site contains no disclosure whatever of the relationship, or lack of relationship, between the site's operator and Complainant. Even if the goods sold there are genuine, which Complainant doubts, such use would not satisfy the requirements for a bona fide offering set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., Case No. D2001-0903 (WIPO, Nov. 6, 2001), which require, among other things, accurate disclosure of the site's relationship with the trademark owner. A website that instead holds itself out as the mark owner, and that is reached through a domain name formed by misspelling the mark owner's own domain name, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i).

 

The second example, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), is a scenario in which a respondent is commonly known by the domain name. The registrar has confirmed that the registrant of the disputed domain name is "Geovanna Mejia" and that the registrant organization is given as "Clover jewerly." A registrant's own WHOIS entry that merely mirrors the domain name it has chosen does not, without more, show that the registrant is in fact commonly known by that name; some independent evidence to that effect is required. No such evidence appears in this record. To the contrary, the website at the disputed domain name gives no name, address, or contact details for its operator, and the name appearing in the WHOIS record simply repeats the misspelling that Complainant complains of. Nor is there any evidence that Respondent owns any trademark rights corresponding to the disputed domain name or was ever licensed or authorized by Complainant to use its mark. Finally, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. 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.") Therefore, the Panel finds no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or that it has been granted any rights relevant thereto per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

As to the third example, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii), there is no evidence that Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the CLOVER mark. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to host a commercial storefront at which products are supposedly offered for sale at discounted prices, which is plainly not noncommercial. Neither can the use be considered fair, as it does not fit within any accepted category of fair use such as news reporting, commentary, criticism, education, or nominative or generic use.

 

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and, in the absence of a Response, nothing in the record rebuts it. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Finally, Complainant must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with prior knowledge of Complainant's rights in the CLOVER mark when it registered the disputed domain name. Complainant's CLOVER mark is prominently featured on Respondent's website and the disputed domain name contains the misspelled word "jewerly" whereas the website spells the word "jewelry" correctly. This confirms that the misspelling in the disputed domain name is a deliberate choice rather than an accident. A domain name so constructed serves no purpose other than to capture internet users who mistype or misread Complainant's domain name, and this form of typosquatting is itself evidence of bad faith registration and use. See Cost Plus Management Services, Inc. v. xushuaiwei, FA 1800036 (Forum Sep. 7, 2018) ("Typosquatting itself is evidence of relevant bad faith registration and use."); Gap Inc. and its subsidiary, Old Navy (Apparel), LLC v. Jiri Capcuch, FA 1562139 (Forum July 2, 2014) ("Respondent adds an additional letter 'v' to Complainant's OLD NAVY mark in the <oldnavvy.com> domain name, a classic example of typosquatting. Respondent's typosquatting is, in itself, evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).")

 

Bad faith registration and use is often found where a respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that website. Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). That is precisely what the evidence shows here. Respondent's website reproduces the CLOVER mark in its graphic logo form at the head of the page, names itself "Clover Jewelry" throughout, displays a footer claiming copyright in that name, offers gold jewelry for sale at deeply discounted prices, and nowhere discloses that it has no connection with Complainant. An Internet user arriving at that site by way of a single mistyped letter has nothing before them to suggest that they have reached anyone other than Complainant. Passing oneself off as a complainant in this manner is a well-recognized indicator of bad faith. See Ashley Furniture Industries, Inc. v. BSI Inc, FA 1213011 (Forum Aug. 7, 2008) ("Respondent's website resolving from the disputed domain name attempts to imitate Complainant's official website.").

 

Respondent's conduct also falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii), which addresses a domain name registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Respondent purportedly offers gold jewelry for sale, the same goods that Complainant designs, distributes, and sells under its CLOVER mark, thus placing Respondent in the position of being a competitor of Complainant. A domain name that reproduces a competitor's mark and mimics that competitor's own domain name down to a single transposed letter has no plausible function other than to intercept traffic intended for that competitor and convert it into sales for the registrant. On this record, and absent any explanation from Respondent, the Panel infers that disruption of Complainant's business, by siphoning off Internet users bound for Complainant's website was a primary purpose of the registration.

 

Complainant asserts that the items offered at Respondent's website are not in fact genuine 18K gold, an assertion that rests principally on the low prices at which they are sold. The Panel need not resolve that question. Whether the goods are as described or not, the manner in which the disputed domain name and its website have been used establishes bad faith registration and use.

 

Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith and that Complainant has satisfied 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 <cloverjewerly.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: August 23, 2026