DECISION

 

DEDCOOL, INC. v. lar frank

Claim Number: FA2608002237401

 

PARTIES

Complainant is DEDCOOL, INC. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew P. Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is lar frank ("Respondent"), Philippines.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <dedcoolshop.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.

 

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.

 

Petter Rindforth as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 4, 2026; Forum received payment on August 4, 2026.

 

On August 5, 2026, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <dedcoolshop.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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 11, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 31, 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@dedcoolshop.com. Also on August 11, 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 September 1, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Petter Rindforth 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 is the owner of the well-known trademark DEDCOOL, used as a fragrance brand. Complainant is also the owner of the <dedcool.com> domain name and has owned and maintained this domain since 2015.

 

Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 29, 2026. The website available at the disputed domain name purports to sell fragrances, perfumes, deodorants, and related products to consumers at a steep discount. This pattern is not consistent with a legitimate retailer or reseller; it is consistent with a scam site built to collect customers' money and payment card information from consumers who believe they are purchasing genuine DEDCOOL products.

 

The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the DEDCOOL trademark into <dedcoolshop.com> with the addition of the descriptive term "shop" and the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") ".com".

 

Respondent cannot demonstrate any legitimate rights or interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its DEDCOOL trademark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name.

 

Upon information and belief, the website for the disputed domain name passed itself off as the website for Complainant by the deliberate copying of the well-known DEDCOOL trademark as well as copying the overall look and feel of Complainant's website.

 

The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. There is no obvious explanation for an entity to register a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant's DEDCOOL trademark to sell goods in direct competition with the Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in its DEDCOOL trademark.

 

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Complainant is the owner of the following U.S. trademark registrations:

 

No. 5,344,291 DEDCOOL (word), registered on November 28, 2017 for goods in Intl Class 3;

No. 7,663,615 DEDCOOL (word), registered on January 21, 2025 for goods in Intl Class 3; and

No. 7,663,617 DEDCOOL (logo), registered on January 21, 2025 for goods in Intl Class 3.

 

The disputed domain name <dedcoolshop.com> was registered on June 29, 2026.

 

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 Complainant claims rights to the DEDCOOL trademark based upon registration with the USPTO. Registration with USPTO sufficiently establishes rights in a trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Haas Automation, Inc. v. Jim Fraser, FA 1627211 (Forum Aug. 4, 2015) (finding that Complainant's USPTO registrations for the HAAS mark sufficiently demonstrate its rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)). Complainant provides a copy of its USPTO registration for the DEDCOOL trademark (e.g., Reg. No. 5,344,291, registered on November 28, 2017).

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the DEDCOOL trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that the <dedcoolshop.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the DEDCOOL trademark, as it contains the trademark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive word "shop" along with the .com gTLD.

 

The addition of a gTLD and a generic term fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

Here, as noted, the disputed domain name incorporates the DEDCOOL trademark in its entirety, adding only the generic term "shop" (indicating that the web site connected with the domain name is the Complainant's online shop) and the gTLD ".com". Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's trademark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Once the Complainant makes a prima facie case in support of its allegations in respect of the second element of the Policy, the burden shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."); see also Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) (holding that the complainant must first make a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under UDRP ¶ 4(a)(ii) before the burden shifts to the respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the <dedcoolshop.com> domain name because Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use any version of the DEDCOOL trademark for any purpose. 

 

Where a response is lacking, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). 

 

Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant's trademark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA 1574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark).

 

The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "lar frank". Therefore, the Panel find that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use as the disputed domain name instead resolve to a webpage that looks like Complainant's own website.

 

Where a respondent uses a domain name to pass itself off as affiliated with the complainant and redirect users to sell fake services and/or goods, previous panels have found that the respondent fails to make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL trademark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization); see also Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) ("Respondent replicates Complainant's website and displays Complainant's products.  The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).").

 

Here, as noted above, Complainant provides evidence of the disputed domain name resolving to a webpage displaying Complainant's trademark, offering the same goods as Complainant.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant, for an illegitimate website that displays Complainant's DEDCOOL trademark as well as copying the overall look and feel of Complainant's website.

 

Use of disputed domain names to resolve to webpage/s that displays a complainant's trademark and identical goods or services is indeed evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant's business).

 

As noted above, Complainant has provided screenshots of Respondent's web sites connected to the disputed domain name that clearly show Complainant's DEDCOOL trademark, using the same text and photos as Complainant, and offering the same goods that Complainant is known for.

 

Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent indeed has registered and used the disputed domain name <dedcoolshop.com> in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Finally, it is noted the Respondent has been involved in several similar domain disputes, a fact that is adding to the bad faith conclusion. See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) ("The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii)."). See also Abbott Laboratories v. Milen Radumilo, FA 1824865 (Forum Feb. 11, 2019) ("Respondent has been subject to a number of adverse decisions suggesting a pattern of conduct under Policy 4(b)(ii).").

 

To summarize, referring to all evidence and facts above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

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

 

 

 

Petter Rindforth, Panelist

Dated: September 15, 2026