DECISION

 

SKYLRK Holdings Inc. v. Jas King

Claim Number: FA2608002238653

 

PARTIES

Complainant is SKYLRK Holdings Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Matthew P. Hintz of Lowenstein Sandler LLP, New Jersey, USA. Respondent is Jas King ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <skylrkmerch.store>, registered with NameCheap, 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 10, 2026; Forum received payment on August 10, 2026.

 

On August 12, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <skylrkmerch.store> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 August 14, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 3, 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@skylrkmerch.store. Also on August 14, 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 4, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

i) Complainant is a well-known apparel brand. Complainant was formed on March 22, 2022. Complainant has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the SKYLRK mark. By virtue of these efforts, Complainant's SKYLRK mark is well-known and recognized by consumers. Complainant holds established rights in the SKYLRK marks based upon numerous trademark registrations, including its registration for the SKYLRK mark (e.g., EUIPO Reg. No. 018751054 , registered March 4, 2023, in Classes 9 and 25) and for the SKYLRK logo mark (e.g., 8,206,320, registered April 7, 2026 in Class 9). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKYLRK mark because it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, simply adding the descriptive term "merch," and the gTLD ".store."

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and Complainant has neither authorized nor licensed Respondent to use or assert any rights in the SKYLRK mark. Moreover, Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent employs the disputed domain name to perpetrate a false affiliation and to pass itself off as Complainant. The disputed domain name was used to pass Respondent off as Complainant by deliberately copying the well-known SKYLRK mark, as well as copying the overall look and feel of Complainant's website, in order to confuse consumers, sell footwear, hoodies, sunglasses, beanies, t-shirts, and other apparel to consumers, and to collect consumers' personal information for nefarious purposes. 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 SKYLRK products.

 

iii) Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent used the disputed domain name to sell footwear, hoodies, sunglasses, beanies, and t-shirts in direct competition with Complainant. Thus, Respondent's use constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name, intended to disrupt Complainant's business. This type of use of a disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration, as it attempts to capitalize on Complainant's goodwill for commercial gain. Respondent's choice to register the disputed domain name by adding the descriptive term "merch," and a gTLD to Complainant's SKYLRK mark, is a clear indication of its intention to mislead internet users to the disputed domain name by diverting traffic away from Complainant's site. Respondent also used a privacy service to mask its identity when registering the disputed domain name. There is no obvious explanation for an entity to register a domain name that is nearly identical to Complainant's SKYLRK mark to sell goods in direct competition with Complainant, other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in its SKYLRK mark.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on April 12, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has established rights in the SKYLRK marks based upon numerous trademark registrations, including its registration for the SKYLRK mark (e.g., EUIPO Reg. No. 018751054 , registered March 4, 2023, in Classes 9 and 25) and for the SKYLRK logo mark (e.g., 8,206,320, registered April 7, 2026 in Class 9).

 

3. The disputed domain name resolves to a website that offers products for sale, such as hoodies, t-shirts, and other apparel that compete with those of Complainant, by directly copying both the SKYLRK word mark and the SKYLRK logo mark.

 

4. There is no disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant on the website associated with the disputed domain name.

 

5. The website operating under the disputed domain name displays a copyright notice incorporating the name "Skylrk Merch."

 

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 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 claims rights in the SKYLRK marks based upon numerous trademark registrations, including its registration for the SKYLRK mark (e.g., EUIPO Reg. No. 018751054 , registered March 4, 2023, in Classes 9 and 25), and for the SKYLRK logo mark (e.g., 8,206,320, registered April 7, 2026 in Class 9). The registration of a mark with a national or international trademark authority is sufficient to establish rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has provided copies of its EUIPO and USPTO registrations for the SKYLRK marks. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the SKYLRK marks under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <skylrkmerch.store> is confusingly similar to Complainant's SKYLRK mark because it incorporates Complainant's mark in its entirety, simply adding the descriptive term "merch," and the gTLD ".store." The Panel notes that the addition of a descriptive term and a gTLD to Complainant's mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and thus finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under 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), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the unmasked WHOIS data lists "Jas King" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under 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 to make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant.

 

The Panel observes that such impersonation does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding that the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant's mark and various photographs related to the complainant's business); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding that no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where the respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant's MERRELL mark, which were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization).

 

Based upon the evidentiary screenshots of the disputed domain name's website and Complainant's website, the Panel notes the following:

 

The website resolving from the disputed domain name offers products for sale that compete with those of Complainant by reproducing Complainant's branding and product imagery evoking Complainant's website, while prominently displaying Complainant's identical SKYLRK word mark and logo mark without any disclaimer of affiliation with Complainant. The Panel further notes that the website operating under the disputed domain name displays a copyright notice incorporating the name "Skylrk Merch." 

 

While the authenticity of the products is unknown, even if the products offered for sale on the website associated with the disputed domain name are Complainant's genuine products, the Panel finds that Respondent's impersonation of Complainant and fraudulent use of the disputed domain name by mimicking Complainant's website, without the need to apply the Oki Data test (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO Nov. 6, 2001)), does not constitute a use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i), nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).

 

Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. All of these factors support the establishment of a prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has failed to file a Response or attempt to refute the prima facie case by any other means, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant contends that Respondent has created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website, thereby constituting bad faith registration and use. The Panel finds that passing itself off as Complainant while offering to sell competing products can serve as evidence of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). See Ontel Products Corporation v. waweru njoroge, FA 1762229 (Forum Dec. 22, 2017) ("Respondent's primary offering seem to be counterfeits of Complainant's toy car products. Respondent's use of the <magictrackscars.com> domain name is thus disruptive to Complainant's business per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)"); see also Russell & Bromley Limited v. Li Wei Wei, FA 1752021 (Forum Nov. 17, 2017) (finding the respondent registered and used the at-issue domain name in bad faith because it used the name to pass off as the complainant and offer for sale competitive, counterfeit goods).

 

As previously noted, Complainant has provided screenshots of the webpage resolving from the disputed domain name, which demonstrate Respondent's impersonation of Complainant and fraudulent use of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that such passing-off activities constitute a disruption of Complainant's business by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's website under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). In addition, Respondent uses the disputed domain name for commercial gain by redirecting Internet users seeking Complainant to Respondent's own website, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).

 

The Panel further notes that Complainant's goods sold under its SKYLRK mark have received favorable press coverage, including in publications such as Hypebeast, TheStreet, Rolling Out, Yahoo Entertainment, Newsweek, Vogue, and many others. Complainant has prominently and extensively used, promoted, and advertised the SKYLRK mark since 2022. By virtue of these efforts, Complainant's SKYLRK mark was well-known and recognized by consumers as designating Complainant as the source of its goods and services long before the registration of the disputed domain name.

 

The Panel infers, based on the notoriety of Complainant's mark and Respondent's passing-off activities, that Respondent had knowledge of Complainant's rights in the SKYLRK marks at the time of registering the disputed domain name, and therefore finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under 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 <skylrkmerch.store> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: September 5, 2026