DECISION

 

Eminent, Inc. v. Mian Shoaib

Claim Number: FA2608002239808

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Eminent, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Jessica Sganga of Baker & Hostetler LLP, California, USA. Respondent is Mian Shoaib ("Respondent"), Pakistan.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <revolvecollection.com>, registered with Spaceship, 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.

 

Sebastian M. W. Hughes as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

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

 

On August 18, 2026, Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <revolvecollection.com> domain name is registered with Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Spaceship, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Spaceship, 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 20, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 9, 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@revolvecollection.com. Also on August 20, 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.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on September 9, 2026.

 

On September 10, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Sebastian M. W. Hughes 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

 

Complainant is a company founded in 2003 and headquartered in California, carrying on business globally as a clothing and accessories brand under the trademark REVOLVE (the "Trademark"), including via its website at "www.revolve.com".

 

Complainant is the owner of numerous registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the Trademark, including International registration No. 1508496, with a registration date of December 3, 2019.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and Respondent has registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The domain name is resolved to an English language website (the "Website") which features prominently the Trade Mark; contains copyright images taken from the Complainant's website; and purportedly offers the Complainant's clothing and accessories at discounted prices.

 

B. Respondent

 

Respondent contends that he is an independent freelance web developer and technology service provider.

 

Respondent contends that he registered the domain name on behalf of an (unidentified) customer as part of a complete website development project.

 

Respondent asserts that the Website is still under development and is not a fully-operational commercial e-commerce store; and that the Website is still being developed and tested.

 

Respondent argues that he did not personally target Complainant and Complainant's Trademark in registering and using the domain name, and that he ought not to be characterized as a cybersquatter or competing commercial operator.

 

Respondent reserves the right to provide supporting documentation demonstrating the nature of his professional services and the circumstances in which the domain name was registered.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant has established all the elements entitling it to transfer of the 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.

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

The domain is confusingly similar to the Trademark. It consists of the Trademark followed by the word "collection".

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests.

 

The Response consists of bare assertions. Respondent has not condescended to submit any evidence to support the assertions made in the Response.

 

Respondent has failed to produce any relevant evidence to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests. Furthermore, there is no disclaimer on the Website – to the contrary, it is clearly designed to impersonate the Complainant's website.

 

The Panel does not find Respondent's contentions convincing. In any event, even assuming Respondent is "innocent" and simply registered and used the domain name on behalf of an undisclosed client, the manner in which the domain name has been used quite clearly does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests for the purposes of the Policy.

 

Complainant has made out the second limb under paragraph 4(b) of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

In light of the manner of use the Website, the Panel has no hesitation in finding the requisite element of bad faith has been made out.

 

This is a clear-cut case, under the Policy, of unlawful impersonation and passing off.

 

Respondent has abjectly failed to adduce any evidence to support his assertions. Even if the contentions in the Response are to be believed, if it is the case that Respondent himself did not target Complainant and its Trademark in registering and using the domain name, there can be no question that his undisclosed principal has instructed him to register and use the domain name in bad faith in respect of the Website.

 

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

 

 

 

Sebastian M. W. Hughes, Panelist

Dated: September 16, 2026