DECISION

 

ABG-Frye LLC v. Yan Ruping

Claim Number: FA2607002235845

 

PARTIES

Complainant is ABG-Frye LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Bridgette Fitzpatrick of Authentic Brands Group LLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Yan Ruping ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <bootfrye.com>, registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.

 

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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2026; Forum received payment on July 29, 2026.

 

On July 30, 2026, Gname.com Pte. Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bootfrye.com> domain name is registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name.  Gname.com Pte. Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Gname.com Pte. Ltd. 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 August 5, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 25, 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@bootfrye.com. Also on August 5, 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 26, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Paul M. DeCicco 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 THE PROCEEDING

Notwithstanding that the relevant Registration Agreement may have been written in Chinese, pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a) the Panel finds persuasive evidence to suggest the likely possibility that Respondent is to a material degree conversant and proficient in the English language. Indeed, the at-issue domain name is not in Chinese script indicating that the website is directed to an English-speaking public and the domain name's website includes all English words. Consequently, since Respondent most likely has a working knowledge of English and Complainant is a United States entity conducting business in English with no knowledge of Chinese, Complainant would be unduly burdened if this proceeding were to continue in Chinese as there would be no cognizable benefit to Respondent, the dispute resolution provider, or the Panel, and yet Complainant would have to alone bear the time and expense of facilitating the translation of relevant documents into Chinese. Therefore, after considering the circumstances of the present case including the proper service of a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint upon Respondent and Respondent's failure to respond thereto, the Panel concludes that the instant proceeding should be in English. 

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant ABG-Frye LLC is the owner of the world-famous FRYE brand. In 1863, John A. Frye opened its doors to his very first store, paving the way for countless generations of Frye artisans dedicated entirely to the art of craftsmanship. The result is beautifully made footwear, apparel, bags and accessories with a long and illustrious history. The FRYE brand is supported by a vast portfolio of intellectual property rights, including a global portfolio of more than 200 trademarks covering a wide variety of goods and services and a large portfolio of copyrights for images used in association with the advertising, marketing and sale of FRYE-branded products globally. Complainant owns multiple USPTO registrations concerning the FRYE mark.

 

The at-issue domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights.

Complainant has an extensive range of USPTO registered trademarks for FRYE. The at-issue domain name consists of the prefix www., the descriptive term "boot" (not case sensitive), Complainant's brand FRYE (not case sensitive), and the generic suffix ".com." Where, as here the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.

 

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.

Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by Complainant in any way to use the FRYE trademark or to apply for any domain names incorporating the FRYE trademark, nor has Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the FRYE trademark by the Respondent. Additionally, there is no evidence of fair use. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the FRYE trademark or the domain names incorporating the FRYE trademark for a bona fide offering of goods or services that doesn't infringe Frye's intellectual property rights. On the contrary, Respondent has been actively using the FRYE trademarks in the domain name to promote its website for illegitimate commercial gains by operating a fake website.

 

Complainant affirms that there is no evidence of Respondent's use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain name; and that Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the at-issue domain name.

 

The at-issue domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

Respondent was well aware of Complainant's trademark at the time Respondent registered the domain name. Complainant's trademarks are well-known around the world. Complainant relies on the extensive range of registered trademarks for FRYE. Respondent was also well aware of Complainant's trademark at the time Respondent registered the at-issue domain name. This is proof of bad faith at the time of registration.

 

Further, a gap of several years between registration of Complainant's trademark and Respondent's registration of an at-issue domain name containing the trademark can indicate bad faith registration.

 

More egregiously, Respondent is trying to pass off the at-issue domain name as the Complainant's website to sell competing and/or unauthorized goods. On the at-issue domain name's website, Respondent uses the FRYE trademarks without any authorization. Respondent has no reason to use the FRYE trademarks in the at-issue domain name or on its associated website other than to attract internet users to its site for commercial gain, especially since Complainant's official website is www.thefryecompany.com. Thus, Respondent is intentionally trying to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Such use of a domain name constitutes bad faith.

 

Finally, Respondent used a privacy shield to mask its identity, which makes it difficult for Complainant to contact Respondent and amicably settle a domain dispute. Respondent's use of privacy shields or similar services which mask Respondent's identity are an indication of bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has trademark rights in the FRYE mark.

 

Complainant's rights in FRYE predate Respondent's registration of <bootfrye.com>.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant nor authorized to use Complainant's trademarks in any capacity.

 

Respondent uses the <bootfrye.com> domain name to address a website passing itself off as Complainant and purporting to sell competing unauthorized FRYE products.

 

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

The at-issue domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights.

 

Complainant shows that it has multiple registrations for FRYE trademark with the USPTO. Any of Complainant's trademark registrations is sufficient to demonstrate Complainant's rights in a mark under the Policy. See BGK Trademark Holdings, LLC & Beyoncé Giselle Knowles-Carter v. Chanphut / Beyonce Shop, FA 1626334 (Forum Aug. 3, 2015) (asserting that Complainant's registration with the USPTO (or any other governmental authority) adequately proves its rights under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

 

Respondent's <bootfrye.com> domain name contains Complainant's FRYE trademark. The mark is prefixed with the suggestive term "boot" with all followed by the ".com" top-level to complete the domain name. The differences between the <bootfrye.com> domain name and Complainant's FRYE trademark are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purposes of the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) that Respondent's <bootfrye.com> domain name is confusingly similar to FRYE. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.")

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

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. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity and as discussed below there are no Policy ¶ 4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. See Charter Communications Holding Company, LLC v. Taha Shaikh / Tskdesigners, FA 1814475 (Forum Nov. 25, 2018) (finding no rights or legitimate interests in <spectrumfeature.com> because complainant never gave respondent permission to use the mark in any manner and "Panels may use these assertions as evidence that no rights or legitimate interests exist in a disputed domain name.")

 

WHOIS information for <bootfrye.com> leads to finding that "Yan Ruping" is the domain name's registrant and there is nothing in the record that tends to prove that Respondent is known by <bootfrye.com>. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the at-issue domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Coppertown Drive-Thru Sys., LLC v. Snowden, FA 715089 (Forum July 17, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <coppertown.com> domain name where there was no evidence in the record, including the WHOIS information, suggesting that the respondent was commonly known by the disputed domain name).

 

Respondent uses the confusingly similar <bootfrye.com> domain name to address a website that impersonates Complainant's official website. There, Respondent offers Complainant's products for sale at a discount. Respondent thus attempts to pass itself off as Complainant and is undoubtedly benefiting from internet traffic meant for Complainant that is misdirected to Respondent's copycat website. Respondent's uses of <bootfrye.com> is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) nor of a non-commercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. NGYEN NGOC PHUONG THAO, FA 1741737 (Forum Aug. 21, 2017) ("Respondent uses the [disputed] domain name to divert Internet users to Respondent's website… confusing them into believing that some sort of affiliation exists between it and Complainant… [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)."). 

 

Given the forgoing, Respondent lacks rights and lacks legitimate interests in respect of <bootfrye.com>.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

As discussed below without being exhaustive, Respondent acted in bad faith.

 

Respondent's at-issue domain name addresses Respondent's <bootfrye.com> website. The website appears like it may be Complainant official website. There, the confusingly similar domain name together with its associated website deceives internet users into falsely believing that the at-issue domain name and website are sponsored by, or authorized by, Complainant. Respondent's <bootfrye.com> website advertises FRYE merchandise and purports to sell FRYE merchandise at a discount. Respondent's use of <bootfrye.com> is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion it created between its <bootfrye.com> domain name and Complainant's FRYE trademark. Respondent's use of the <bootfrye.com> domain name and its referenced website demonstrate Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <bootfrye.com> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant."); see also, Allianz of Am. Corp. v. Bond, FA 680624 (Forum June 2, 2006) (finding bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the respondent was diverting internet users searching for the complainant to its own website and likely profiting).

 

Moreover, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the FRYE mark when Respondent registered <bootfrye.com> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is apparent given the FRYE mark's notoriety and given Respondent's use of the domain name to mimic Complainant's genuine website and offer unauthorized FRYE merchandise for sale. Respondent's registration and use of a confusingly similar domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights in FRYE further demonstrates Respondent's bad faith. See Lemon Inc. v. Sumer Singh, FA 2110519 (Forum Sept. 5, 2024 ("registration of a disputed domain name with actual knowledge of another's trademark rights is sufficient to establish bad faith and can be shown by the notoriety of the mark and the use the Respondent makes of the disputed domain name"); see also, Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name).

 

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

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: August 27, 2026