DECISION

 

Gold's Gym Licensing LLC v. Mason Hunter

Claim Number: FA2608002239282

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Gold's Gym Licensing LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Allison R. Ainsworth of Munck Wilson Mandala, LLP, Texas, USA. Respondent is Mason Hunter ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <goldsgymstore.shop>, registered with 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.

 

Paul M. DeCicco, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 12, 2026; Forum received payment on August 12, 2026.

 

On August 14, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 21, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 10, 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@goldsgymstore.shop. Also on August 21, 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 11, 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.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant contends in part as follows:

 

Complainant Gold's Gym Licensing LLC is one of the world's largest international gym chains, operating nearly 600 fitness centers and serving more than two million members across numerous countries.

 

Through authorized franchisees and licensees, Complainant offers a broad range of fitness services as well as apparel, supplements, and other fitness-related goods. These goods and services have been offered worldwide for many years under Complainant's trademarks, including but not limited to the word mark GOLD'S GYM, stylized GOLD'S GYM mark, various other GOLD'S GYM marks & designs.

 

Complainant owns numerous valid and subsisting trademark registrations in the United States and internationally, for GOLD'S GYM.

 

CONFUSINGLY SIMILAR DOMAIN NAME

Complainant has provided evidence of its trademark registrations with a national authority in the United States. Complainant therefore has rights in the GOLD'S GYM mark. The at-issue domain name incorporates the GOLD'S GYM word mark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive term "store" [the Panel notes that Complainant fails to expressly discuss Respondent's inclusion of the highly suggestive term "gym" that it also includes in the at-issue domain name] and the generic top-level domain ("gTLD") ".shop." The domain name also incorporates Complainant's longstanding GOLD'S GYM word mark, adding only the term "store" and the gTLD ".shop". As such, the domain name is functionally identical to the GOLD'S GYM word mark and confusingly similar to all of Complainant's marks.

 

NO RIGHTS OR LEGITIMATE INTERESTS IN DOMAIN NAME

Respondent is not commonly known by Complainant's marks, nor has Respondent used the at-issue domain name in connection with a bona fide, non-infringing offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent's identity is anonymized by the Registrar, but the Registrar's Verification Information reveals that the actual registrant is an individual named "Mason Hunter".

 

Respondent: (a) is not commonly known by any of Complainant's marks, (b) is not affiliated with Complainant in any way, (c) is not licensed by Complainant to use any of Complainant's marks, and (d) is not an authorized vendor, supplier, distributor, or franchise of Complainant's offerings. Further, neither the ICANN Lookup Tool, the WHOIS Report nor the Registrar's Verification Information indicates that Respondent is known by any name or mark consisting of or including "GOLD'S GYM". Based on this information, Respondent is not commonly known by any of Complainant's marks. Respondent identifies themselves as "Mason Hunter", listing no organization name and providing no mention of "GOLD'S GYM" in the registration information. This supports a finding that Respondent is commonly known as "Mason Hunter" not "GOLD'S GYM" or any name or mark containing Complainant's marks.

 

Respondent is not engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services under the at-issue domain name. Instead, Respondent purports to sell Gold's Gym clothing and apparel that are identical or directly competitive with Complainant's core offerings – namely athletic clothing, accessories, drink and supplement shakers, creatine gummies under Complainant's well-established marks.

 

In particular, Respondent purports to be the "Gold's Gym Official Store", which Complainant offers under its marks and advertises on its genuine website at <goldsgymstore.shop> and other platforms. By using the at-issue domain name to promote such goods, Respondent not only trades on the goodwill associated with Complainant's brand, but also falsely represents itself as Complainant on the Contact Us page of the at-issue domain name by listing Complainant's actual support email, thereby misleading consumers and infringing on Complainant's rights.

 

The striking similarity between Respondent's offerings and those of Complainant – combined with Respondent's false suggestion of affiliation – creates a misleading commercial impression that Complainant endorses or approves of Respondent or its purported offerings. In reality, no such relationship exists, and Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name serves to misappropriate the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks. This is not a bona fide offering of goods or services.

 

Respondent's <goldsgymstore.shop> website copies Complainant's genuine website almost identically and falsely and fraudulently represents itself as purporting to offer the exact goods sold through the Complainant's website but at a discounted price. This is neither indicative of a bona fide offering of goods or services nor of a non-commercial fair use.

 

Although Respondent's website purports to sell Complainant's products, it is unclear whether any legitimate sales are made via the site. The only contact information listed on Respondent's website is the email address; however, Complainant owns the domain name goldsgym.com. Respondent therefore cannot use the domain name for email address communications, and any purported customer support via that email address is sent to Complainant. As a result, Respondent cannot be contacted through the only contact information provided on its <goldsgymstore.shop> website, rendering that contact information effectively fake.

 

REGISTRATION AND USE IN BAD FAITH

Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith because Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's marks. At the time Respondent registered the domain name on July 14, 2026, Complainant's marks were already in use commercially and the GOLD'S GYM marks had already been registered across multiple jurisdictions for many years – and in most cases, decades.

 

Trademark applications and registrations with the USPTO are publicly available for review; therefore, Respondent had actual or constructive knowledge of Complainant's pre-existing rights in Complainant's marks when the domain name was registered.

 

Based on Complainant's popularity and prominence in the fitness industry and among the general public, Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's marks when registering the at-issue domain name. Respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name with knowledge of Complainant's rights is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Respondent is using the domain name to perpetrate a scam targeting Complainant's customers by misleading them into believing that Respondent and Respondent's website are affiliated with or operated by Complainant, including by featuring information on the "About Us" page regarding Gold's Gym's legacy and mission. This deception is intended to divert customers from Complainant under false pretenses, trading on the goodwill associated with Complainant's marks and causing significant harm to Complainant's brand and consumer trust. Respondent's unauthorized offering of goods that are identical to Complainant's, coupled with false claims of affiliation with Complainant, demonstrates an intent to commercially benefit, unfairly and opportunistically, from the goodwill and consumer trust associated with Complainant and its GOLD'S GYM marks. Such diversion constitutes bad-faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Respondent's conduct also constitutes passing off and independently evidences bad faith registration and use.

 

There is overwhelming evidence that, by using a domain name confusingly similar to Complainant's marks, Respondent is intentionally disrupting and exploiting Complainant's business to attract Internet users and to mislead them into believing Respondent is affiliated with Complainant.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has rights in the GOLD'S GYM mark and other related marks.

 

Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and had not been authorized to use Complainant's trademark in any capacity.

 

Respondent registered the at‑issue domain name after Complainant acquired rights in the GOLD'S GYM trademark.

 

Respondent uses the at-issue domain name to address a website lifting content from Complainant genuine website thus appearing as if affiliated with Complainant and likely commercially benefits therefrom.

 

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 registered its GOLD'S GYM trademark, as well as related trademarks, with the USPTO and other bona fide registrars worldwide. Any of Complainant's GOLD'S GYM centric 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 <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name consists of Complainant's GOLD'S GYM trademark less its domain name impermissible apostrophe and space, followed by the suggestive term or terms "gymstore," with all followed by the ".shop" top-level domain name. The differences between Complainant's GOLD'S GYM  trademark and <goldsgymstore.shop> fail to distinguish the domain name from Complainant's mark for the purpose of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The Panel thus concludes that Respondent's <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GOLD'S GYM trademark under the Policy. 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."); see also, Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Domain Administrator / Registry Services, LLC, FA 2038314 (Forum July 26, 2023) ("The addition of a gTLD fails to sufficiently distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).").

 

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.").

 

The WHOIS information for the at-issue domain name leads to the Panel finding that the domain name's registrant is "Mason Hunter" and the record before the Panel contains no evidence otherwise showing that Respondent is commonly known by the <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name or any relevant variation thereof. The Panel therefore concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by <goldsgymstore.shop> for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See PragmaticPlay Limited v. Robert Chris, FA 1932464 (Forum Mar. 23, 2021) ("The WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as "Robert Chris," and no other information of record suggests Respondent is commonly known by the domain name. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).").

 

Respondent uses its <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name to address a website mimicking significant aspects of Complainant's genuine website thus making the bogus website appear as if it may be affiliated with or sponsored by Complainant. Respondent's use of the at-issue domain name in such manner is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4 (c)(i), nor a non-commercial or fair use pursuant to 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 <goldsgymstore.shop>.

 

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 <goldsgymstore.shop> website. The website mimics Complainant's genuine website to attempt to pass itself off as being associated with Complainant. Respondent's use of its confusingly similar <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name to disguise itself as Complainant is disruptive to Complainant's business and designed to attract internet users so that Respondent may capitalize on the confusion Respondent created between its <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name and Complainant's GOLD'S GYM trademark. Respondent's prior use of the <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name and referenced website demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use of <goldsgymstore.shop> under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) and Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent's registration and use of the at-issue domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant's website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); 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 GOLD'S GYM mark when Respondent registered <goldsgymstore.shop> as a domain name. Respondent's actual knowledge is evident from the long notoriety of Complainant's GOLD'S GYM trademark; from Respondent's incorporation of the suggestive term/s "gymstore" into the at-issue domain name; and from Respondent's use of the domain name to address a website to pose as being a sponsored website of Complainant. 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 <goldsgymstore.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Paul M. DeCicco, Panelist

Dated: September 12, 2026