DECISION

 

Maison Battat Inc. v. Sophie Freud / wrightx wrightx

Claim Number: FA2608002237614

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Maison Battat Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Andrew S. Langsam of Law Office of Andrew S. Langsam, PLLC, New York, USA. Respondent is Sophie Freud / wrightx wrightx ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> and <ourgenerationtoys.com>, registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and Dynadot 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.

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 5, 2026; Forum received payment on August 5, 2026.

 

On Aug 6, 2026; Aug 8, 2026, TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> and <ourgenerationtoys.com> domain names are registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and Dynadot Inc have verified that Respondent is bound by the TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown and Dynadot Inc registration agreements 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 19, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 8, 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@ourgenerationdollsusa.com and postmaster@ourgenerationtoys.com.

 

Also on August 19, 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 9, 2026 pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed James Bridgeman SC 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 disputed domain names be cancelled.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE – MULTIPLE REGISTRANTS

Complainant submits that a single proceeding to have the two domain names cancelled seems entirely reasonable and appropriate as neither of the registrants have any legitimate rights to the domain names and, as outlined herein, they were registered for an abusive purpose, namely, to take advantage of the Complainant's well established trademark rights and the associated goodwill therewith. In view of the proximity of the dates of registration and that for other similarly offending domain names, it is believed that there is a relationship between the registrants, justifying the consolidation of the two domain names into a single proceeding.

 

Rule 10 provides that "… (e) A Panel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules."

 

The disputed domain name <ourgenerationtoys.com> was registered with TuringSign Inc. d/b/a Cosmotown on February 10, 2026 in the name of wrightx wrightx and <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> was registered with DYNADOT LLC on March 3, 2026 in the name of Sophie Freud.

 

Each of the disputed domain names were registered within less than a month of each other, and each resolves to a website that purports to sell dolls in competition with Complainant. Both of the websites have very similar characteristics, particularly that they each prominently display Complainant's OUR GENERATION mark and logo. The presentation of each is dominated by images of toy dolls, with the color pink being a dominant feature in each case.

 

The proximity in time of the registration of the disputed domain names and the similarity of their presentation allow this Panel to find that each of the registrations are on the balance of probabilities under common control and may be the subject of a single complaint.

 

The named registrants shall therefore be referred to as "Respondent" in this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant claims ownership of the OUR GENERATION mark based on its ownership of the trademark registrations described below and use of the mark in Canada and the USA for more than 20 years.

 

Complainant submits that it is a family-owned business established in or about 1897 and operates 18 major toy brands, including toys, dolls, crafts, newborn toys, and educational products for children of all ages.

Complainant further states that it is a major participant in the toy industry, particularly in the fields of dolls and doll accessories, throughout the United States. Its dolls, doll clothing, and doll accessories are sold throughout the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia under the OUR GENERATION mark.

 

Complainant adds that it has sold millions of units of toys in the United States and abroad for hundreds of millions of dollars using dozens of registered United States and foreign trademarks, with a significant proportion of those sales coming from OUR GENERATION dolls and doll accessories.

 

Complainant further submits that it operates websites through which it markets and sells products under the OUR GENERATION marks, including <www.ourgeneration.com>, <www.ourgenerationdolls.ca>, and <www.battatco.com>.

 

<www.ourgeneration.com> is a separate, dedicated website for Complainant's OUR GENERATION dolls, doll clothing, and doll accessories, while <www.battatco.com> presents Complainant's various toy brands, including products sold under the OUR GENERATION marks.

Complainant firstly alleges that the disputed domain names are each confusingly similar to the OUR GENERATION mark in which it has rights:

Complainant argues that both of the disputed domain names incorporate the OUR GENERATION mark in its entirety and the mark is the primary, prominent, and distinctive element in each of the disputed domain names.

 

In <ourgenerationtoys.com>, the added term "toys" describes the goods associated with complainant's OUR GENERATION mark and does not distinguish the disputed domain name from the mark.

 

In <ourgenerationdollsusa.com>, the term "doll" also describes goods associated with the OUR GENERATION mark, while "USA" is a geographical designation that does not distinguish the domain name from the mark.

 

Secondly Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name arguing that :

·       Respondent has no relationship, license, agreement, authority, business connection, or other association with Complainant permitting Respondent to use the OUR GENERATION or OUR GENERATION BABY marks, or to use them in the disputed domain names;

·       Respondent is not commonly known by OUR GENERATION, OUR GENERATION DOLLS, OUR GENERATION TOYS, <ourgenerationdollsusa.com>, or <ourgenerationtoys.com>.

·       Respondent has not purchased or sought to purchase Complainant's goods for resale;

·       any apparent offering of goods on the websites to which the disputed domain names resolve is not bona fide because the webpages use Complainant's registered marks, copyrighted materials, distinctive logo, and the look and feel of Complainant's webpages, thereby creating the appearance of an association with Complainant.

 

Complainant refers to screen captures of the websites to which the disputed domain name resolves which are exhibited in the annexes to the Complaint and argues that Respondent's websites are intended to deceive and confuse consumers into believing that the disputed domain names or the associated webpages are sponsored, licensed, controlled, or otherwise authorized by Complainant.

 

Complainant adds that Respondent's use of the disputed domain names to display Complainant's marks and materials, and to offer or advertise allegedly infringing or counterfeit merchandise, cannot establish a legitimate interest.

 

Complainant alleges that one of the associated websites is a phishing site seeking personal user information. Complainant contends that such activity is inconsistent with any legitimate interest and further harms Complainant because consumers may attribute the phishing activity to Complainant.

 

Complainant further contends that Respondent's lack of legitimate interests is demonstrated by the absence of any reasonable legitimate and non-infringing explanation for registering and using <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> and <ourgenerationtoys.com>.

 

Thirdly Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith to take advantage of its well-established OUR GENERATION trademark rights and associated goodwill.

Each of the disputed domain names were registered in 2026 long after Complainant commenced use of the OUR GENERATION mark which was registered on the Principal Register in the USA on August 28, 2001.

 

Each of the disputed domain names adopt Complainant's OUR GENERATION and add only the descriptive or geographical terms "dolls," "toys," and "USA"; and there is no logical explanation for the registrations except that they were selected with Complainant's marks in mind.

Complainant submits that the evidence on record shows that Respondent obtained the disputed domain names without any genuine intention to use them in commerce for legitimate, non-counterfeit goods; and furthermore, Respondent has never bought or sought to buy Complainant's goods for resale.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain names were each registered to be held for purchase by Complainant, and to force Complainant to pay for their transfer so that it could protect its goodwill and prevent confusion concerning the ownership and use of the OUR GENERATION mark.

 

Complainant additionally alleges that the disputed domain names were registered as part of a plan either to resell them to Complainant or to exploit Complainant's trademark rights; and adds that the registrations were intended to prevent it from using its own distinctive OUR GENERATION mark in corresponding domain names unless it paid a monetary demand for transfer or cancellation.

 

Finally, Complainant relies on the proximity of the registration dates of the two disputed domain names, together with the alleged abusive purpose common to both registrations, as evidence of a relationship between Respondent and the registration activity directed at Complainant's trademark rights.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant is a manufacturer of toys and related goods and relies on its ownership of the following trademark registrations:

·       United States registered trademark OUR GENERATION, registration number 2,483,148, registered on the Principal Register on August 28, 2001 for goods or services in international class 28;

·       United States registered trademark OUR GENERATION BABY, registration number 2,795,544, registered on the Principal Register on December 16, 2003 for goods or services in international class 28.

The Complainant has an established internet presence and maintains its official website at <www.ourgeneration.com>.

 

The disputed domain name

·       <ourgenerationtoys.com> was registered on February 10, 2026, in the name of wrightx wright and

·       <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> was registered on March 3, 2026 in the name of Sophie Freud.

 

Each of the disputed domain names resolves to a website that displays the OUR GENERATION mark and Complainant's logo and have a presentation dominated by images of toy dolls, with the color pink being a dominant feature in each case.

 

There is no information available about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint as amended, the Registrar's WhoIs, and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by Forum for details of the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

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 has provided convincing, uncontested evidence of its rights in the OUR GENERATION mark, established by the ownership of the trademark registrations described above and extensive use of the mark in the Complainant's business manufacturing toys and related goods.

Both of the disputed domain names consists of Complainants' trademark in its entirety.

 

The disputed domain name <ourgenerationtoys.com> is composed of the mark in combination with the descriptive term "toys"; and <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> combines Complainant's mark with the descriptive term "doll" and the geographic term USA.

 

Both were registered on the generic Top-Level Domain ("gTLD") <.com>.

It is well established that where a domain name contains a complainant's mark in its entirety, as in the case of each of the disputed domain names, a panel may make a finding of confusing similarity.

 

The generic terms "toys", "doll" and the geographic term USA, do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity.

 

Additionally, is well accepted that a gTLD extension, in the present proceeding <.com> in each case, may be ignored for the purposes of comparison because it would be considered to be a necessary technical requirement for a domain name registration.

 

Applying these principles this Panel finds that the disputed domain names <ourgenerationtoys.com> and <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> are each confusingly similar to the OUR GENERATION mark in which Complainant has rights and Complainant has therefore succeeded in the first element of the test in Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant has made out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights legitimate interests in the disputed domain names as set out in Complainant's detailed submissions above.

 

In particular, the uncontested evidence is that each of the disputed domain names, which incorporate Complainant's mark in its entirety, resolve to websites that prominently display Complainant's trademark, without license or authority, and purport to use Complainant's mark for the purposes of marketing competing toys.

 

It is well established that once a complainant makes out a prima facie case that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name at issue, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to prove its rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent has failed to discharge that burden and therefore this Panel must find that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Complainant has therefore succeeded in the second element of the test in Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Each of the disputed domain names were registered in 2026 long after Complainant commenced use of the OUR GENERATION mark which was registered on the Principal Register in the USA on August 28, 2001.

 

OUR GENERATION is a distinctive mark and is the dominant element in each of the disputed domain names.

 

It is improbable that Respondent was unaware of Complainant and it mark when the disputed domain names were registered; and on the balance of probabilities the disputed domain names were each registered with Complainant's mark in mind in order to take predatory advantage of Complainants rights and goodwill in the OUR GENERATION mark.

 

Complainant alleges that the disputed domain names were registered for the purposes of selling them to Complainant. There is no evidence of any intention of extortion of that nature in the record.

 

However Respondent's use of the disputed domain names in the addresses of Complainant's website are calculated to attract, confuse and deceive Internet users and cause them to divert their traffic away from Complainant's website. Taking Respondent's websites at face value, they each purport to offer competing goods for sale.

 

The Panel finds that on the evidence adduced, Respondent is using Complainant's mark within the disputed domain name, without license or authority, intending to attract and confuse Internet users and cause them to divert their Internet traffic intended for Complainant and misdirect it to Respondent's website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and the goods offered by Respondent for sale on the site. Such use constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith for the purposes of the Policy.

 

As this Panel has found that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, Complainant has therefore succeeded in the third element of the test in 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 <ourgenerationdollsusa.com> and <ourgenerationtoys.com> domain names be CANCELLED.

 

 

____________________________________

 

James Bridgeman SC, Panelist

Dated: September 10, 2026