DECISION

 

Indian Industries, Inc. v. Kailey Mercer

Claim Number: FA2608002239640

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Indian Industries, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Charles J. Meyer of Woodard, Emhardt, Henry, Reeves & Wagner LLP, Indiana, USA. Respondent is Kailey Mercer ("Respondent"), Arizona, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <escaladesportshq.shop>, registered with Dynadot Inc.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Nick J. Gardner as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 14, 2026; Forum received payment on August 14, 2026.

 

On August 17, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <escaladesportshq.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 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@escaladesportshq.shop. 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 Nick J. Gardner 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant, Indian Industries, Inc., supplies sporting goods and recreational equipment, including basketball goals and accessories, table tennis tables and accessories, game tables, billiard tables and accessories, dartboards and darts, archery equipment, exercise equipment, cornhole games, and playground equipment. It sells these goods through its website at <escaladesports.com> and through retail locations throughout the United States. Complainant says it has used the ESCALADE and ESCALADE SPORTS marks (together, the "ESCALADE Marks") since at least as early as September 1995.

 

Complainant says it owns United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") Registration No. 3,126,530 for the ESCALADE mark, registered August 8, 2006, and USPTO Registration No. 7,213,346 for the ESCALADE SPORTS mark, registered November 7, 2023, in each case in respect of goods in International Class 28. Complainant contends that, by reason of its continuous, significant and substantially exclusive use of the ESCALADE Marks, those marks are distinctive and well known in connection with sporting goods.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, registered on May 19, 2026, is confusingly similar to the ESCALADE Marks; that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in it, not being commonly known by it and not having been authorized to use the ESCALADE Marks; and that Respondent registered and is using it in bad faith. In particular, Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a commercial website closely resembling Complainant's own website, which prominently displays ESCALADE SPORTS, reproduces images of Complainant's products, and purports to offer Complainant's goods for sale, so as to lead consumers to believe they are dealing with, and paying, Complainant when they are in fact dealing with Respondent.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The Panel finds the following facts established by the evidence in the record:

1. Complainant owns valid and subsisting USPTO trademark Registration No. 7,213,346 for ESCALADE SPORTS, registered November 7, 2023. The Complainant also relies upon US Registration No. 3,126,530 for ESCALADE registered August 8, 2006 but the relevant evidence shows that trademark registered to a different entity.

2. Complainant operates a commercial website at <escaladesports.com> through which it offers sporting goods and recreational equipment under the ESCALADE Marks.

3. Respondent registered the disputed domain name on May 19, 2026, nearly twenty years after the ESCALADE mark was registered and three years after Complainant registered the ESCALADE SPORTS mark.

4. The disputed domain name resolves to a website which displays the ESCALADE SPORTS name, reproduces product images and presentation drawn from Complainant's legitimate website at <escaladesports.com>, and purports to offer Complainant's goods for sale. The website creates the false impression that it is an official website of Complainant, or is authorized by, sponsored by, or affiliated with Complainant.

5. Respondent has not been authorized, licensed, or otherwise permitted by Complainant to register domain names incorporating the ESCALADE Marks or to use those marks in any manner.

6. Respondent failed to respond to the Complaint, offering no explanation for its choice of domain name or its use of Complainant's trademarks and website content.

 

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

Complainant has established rights in the ESCALADE SPORTS Mark through its USPTO registration. The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstrating rights in the ESCALADE SPORTS Mark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. See Farmlane Brands, LLC v. Helene Isbell Biggane, FA 1996757 (Forum July 12, 2022) ("Ownership of a trademark registration is generally sufficient evidence that a complainant has the requisite rights in a mark for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.").

 

The disputed domain name reproduces Complainant's ESCALADE SPORTS mark in its entirety followed by the letters "hq". Those letters are a commonly understood abbreviation for "headquarters" and do nothing to distinguish the disputed domain name from Complainant's ESCALADE SPORTS mark. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognisable 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."). If anything, the letters "hq" reinforce the impression that the disputed domain name denotes Complainant's principal or official online presence.

 

The addition of the generic top-level domain ".shop" is a technical requirement of domain name registration and does not affect the confusing similarity analysis. See Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association v. Shi Lei aka Shilei, FA 1784643 (Forum June 18, 2018) ("A TLD (whether a gTLD, sTLD or ccTLD) is disregarded under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis because domain name syntax requires TLDs.").

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), it is now well established that the Complainant must first make a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii) and that, if the prima facie case is made out, the burden then shifts to the Respondent to show that it does have such rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006).

 

Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use the ESCALADE Marks and has no relationship with Respondent. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Kailey Mercer", a name which bears no resemblance to the disputed domain name, and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in ESCALADE, ESCALADE SPORTS or any similar term. Complainant has accordingly established a prima facie case under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and the burden shifts to Respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests.

 

Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website which displays ESCALADE SPORTS, reproduces images and presentation taken from Complainant's own website, and purports to sell Complainant's goods. The website does not identify Respondent or disclose that it has no connection with Complainant; on the contrary, it presents itself as Complainant. The use of a domain name confusingly similar to a complainant's mark to attract traffic to a website which masquerades as that of the complainant cannot establish a legitimate interest. See Yahoo Assets LLC v. Zanybh Solutions, FA 2022077 (Forum Dec. 12, 2022) ("As the Panel agrees that Respondent appears to be passing off as Complainant to draw Internet traffic, the Panel finds that Respondent lacks any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).").

 

The Panel has considered whether Respondent might be a reseller of genuine ESCALADE goods. There is no evidence that it is, and Respondent has not suggested as much. In any event, even a genuine reseller could not derive a legitimate interest from a website which impersonates the trademark owner and gives no accurate indication of the relationship, or lack of it, between the website operator and that owner. The composition of the Disputed Domain Name itself, combining Complainant's mark with a term denoting a headquarters and the ".shop" suffix, further suggests an affiliation with Complainant that does not exist. See generally the well-known "Oki Data test" - Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903

 

Accordingly the Panel concludes that Respondent has failed to rebut Complainant's prima facie case or to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth four non-exclusive circumstances that constitute evidence of registration and use in bad faith. The Panel finds that Respondent's conduct falls within Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv), which addresses circumstances where "by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location."

 

As to registration, the disputed domain name was registered nearly twenty years after the ESCALADE mark was registered. The website to which it resolves reproduces Complainant's ESCALADE SPORTS branding and images of Complainant's products, and purports to offer the very goods Complainant sells. It is inconceivable that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name without knowledge of Complainant and its marks, and the Panel infers that Respondent registered it precisely in order to take advantage of that reputation.

 

As to use, Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a website which purports to be that of Complainant, with a view to selling goods to Internet users who believe they are dealing with Complainant. Prior panels have consistently found that such conduct evidences bad faith registration and use. See Brooks Sports, Inc. v. Redacted for Privacy, FA 1930066 (Forum Feb. 15, 2021) ("[T]he Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent's resolving webpage, in which Respondent displays the BROOKS Mark in the banner and displays images of Complainant's products offered for sale, using Complainant's trademarks, product name, and product images in the listings.... Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv)."). 

 

The totality of the circumstances compels the conclusion that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established 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 <escaladesportshq.shop> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nick  J. Gardner Panelist

Dated: September 23, 2026