DECISION

 

BELK STORES SERVICE, LLC v. LI CE PING / LI CE PINGLI CE PING

Claim Number: FA2608002240229

 

PARTIES

Complainant is BELK STORES SERVICE, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by Jacob S. Wharton of Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP, North Carolina, USA. Respondent is LI CE PING / LI CE PINGLI CE PING ("Respondent"), China.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <thebelk.com>, registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation.

 

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.

 

Steven M. Levy as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 17, 2026; Forum received payment on August 17, 2026.

 

On August 19, 2026, Xin Net Technology Corporation confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <thebelk.com> domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corporation and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Xin Net Technology Corporation has verified that Respondent is bound by the Xin Net Technology Corporation 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Chinese and English Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 16, 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@thebelk.com. Also on August 27, 2026, the Chinese and English 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 in Chinese and English.

 

On September 18, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Steven M. Levy 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.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDING

The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is written in Chinese, thereby initially making this the language of the proceeding pursuant to Rule 11(a). However, Complainant requests that this Panel exercise its discretion under Rules 10(b) and (c) and determine that English be the language of the proceeding. In support of its request, Complainant notes that the website resolving from the disputed domain name is presented entirely in English and contains no Chinese characters or syllabaries; that the domain name itself pairs Complainant's mark with the English word "the", indicating that the website is directed to an English speaking public; and that Complainant, a United States entity, has no knowledge of the Chinese language. The Panel notes Complainant's submission of screenshots of Respondent's website and these do support the assertion that the site appears entirely in English. Further, Forum has provided notice of these proceedings to Respondent in both Chinese and English, yet Respondent has not provided a Response or made any other submission in this case. In Zappos.com, Inc. v. Zufu aka Huahaotrade, D2008-1191 (WIPO Oct. 15, 2008) the Panel held that proceedings could be conducted in English even though the registration agreement was in Chinese where "the disputed domain resolves to a website [that] is exclusively in English, from which can be reasonably presumed that the Respondent has the ability to communicate in English in order to conduct his business over the website in English". In light of the above, and the delay and further expense that would be caused by requiring Complainant to submit documents in Chinese, the Panel determines that the remainder of this proceeding may be conducted in English without prejudice to Respondent.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it operates a department store chain based in North Carolina, with stores throughout the southeastern United States, that it markets its goods and services through its own website at <belk.com>, and that it has used the trademark BELK in connection with retail department store services since at least as early as 1968. It owns numerous United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") registrations for the mark, including Reg. No. 1614424 dated September 18, 1990, Reg. No. 4117383 dated March 27, 2012, and Reg. No. 5317159 dated October 24, 2017.

 

The disputed domain name, registered on August 27, 2025, is confusingly similar to the BELK mark as it includes the entirety of the mark and adds only the English word "the", as well as the ".com" TLD.

 

Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, is not a subsidiary, affiliate, licensee, or agent of Complainant and has never been authorized to use the BELK mark, and instead uses the domain name to host a website that prominently displays Complainant's mark, graphics, and copyrighted product images taken from Complainant's own website while promoting Complainant's own goods, none of which is a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

 

Finally, Complainant contends that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. It states that its mark has been in continuous use for decades, and was the subject of numerous trademark registrations, long before the disputed domain name was registered; that Respondent's copying of Complainant's mark, its copyrighted product images, and its corporate history leaves no doubt that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights and that Respondent was, in any event, on constructive notice of them; that Respondent earns advertising fees through its participation in an affiliate advertising program, as disclosed at the foot of its own pages, while disrupting Complainant's business and attracting internet users for commercial gain based on a likelihood of confusion in violation of Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv); and that Respondent provided false contact information to the Registrar and shielded its identity behind a privacy service.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

−        Complainant owns registered trademark rights to its BELK mark and the <thebelk.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the mark;

 

−        Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name where it is not commonly known by the domain name, and it hosts a website that passes itself off as originating with Complainant and claims to offer Complainant's products; and

 

−        The disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith where its website impersonates Complainant and deceives consumers, for commercial gain, based on a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark.

 

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 asserts rights in its BELK mark through its registrations with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to demonstrate rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) ("Complainant's ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).") Here, Complainant provides copies of its USPTO Trademark Registration Certificates together with the corresponding status records from the USPTO's Trademark Status and Document Retrieval ("TSDR") database and therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the BELK mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Next, Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the BELK mark. Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i), adding a generic or descriptive term, along with a TLD, is typically insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from the asserted mark. See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) ("The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms 'genuine' and 'parts' as well as the '.com' gTLD."); see also 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 <thebelk.com> domain name includes the entirety of the BELK mark and adds only the definite article "the", a word that carries no distinguishing meaning of its own and that here reads as a reference to Complainant itself, together with the ".com" TLD which is generally disregarded. These minimal changes do not reduce confusion and the mark remains clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel finds that Respondent's 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). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("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").

 

Complainant first contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the <thebelk.com> domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use the BELK mark. It has become well accepted that the information set out in a disputed domain name's WHOIS record may inform consideration of whether a respondent is commonly known by a disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Operi Manaha, FA 1815225 (Forum Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <appbittrex.com> domain name where the WHOIS information lists Respondent as "Operi Manaha," and nothing else in the record suggested Respondent was authorized to use the BITTREX mark.) In addition, a lack of authorization to use a complainant's mark may indicate that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant's mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)"). The WHOIS record for the <thebelk.com> domain name, as revealed by the concerned Registrar, identifies the Registrant as "Li Ce Ping" of "Li Ce Pingli Ce Ping", neither of which bears any resemblance to the disputed domain name. Complainant further states that "Respondent is not licensed to use Complainant's Marks. Respondent also is not a subsidiary, affiliate, or licensee of the Complainant, nor controlled by Complainant, nor an agent of Complainant, nor otherwise affiliated with Complainant." Respondent has not filed a Response in this case and so it does not dispute Complainant's assertions or supplement the available evidence. Therefore, the Panel finds no ground upon which to conclude that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Next, Complainant asserts that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and that it is also not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Rather, it asserts that the <thebelk.com> domain name resolves to a website that impersonates Complainant and deceives consumers who are seeking Complainant's goods. Such activity has been held to be neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Subway IP LLC v. subways pvt ltd / business development, FA 2069330 (Forum Nov. 28, 2023) (no rights or legitimate interests found where "Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and Complainant's Indian subsidiary...")

 

In support of its contentions Complainant submits screenshots of the website to which the disputed domain name resolves, as well as screenshots of its own <belk.com> website for comparison. The home page of Respondent's site opens with a banner headed "Belk® Dresses, Shoes, Shoes, Jewelry, Purses, Clothing" above the line "Explore Belk's extensive selection of brand-name dresses, shoes, clothing, jewelry & purses. Your one-stop shopping destination for style and value." and a button reading "View More Products". A navigation menu across the top of each page reads "Home", "Apparel", "Bed & Bath", "Bolg & News", "Handbags", "Jewelry", and "Shoes". Below the banner, a "Shop by Category" section displays panels headed "Belk Sresses", "Belk Shoes", and "Belk Clothing", followed by a "Shop by Belk Product" section showing photographs of jeans and other apparel, each labeled with a product name and description. Complainant's comparison screenshots show that these photographs and descriptions, including those for a pair of children's embroidered jeans and a quarter-zip pullover, appear on product pages of Complainant's own <belk.com> website. A section headed "Why Choose Belk" recites Complainant's history and business, stating that "Belk has established itself as a cornerstone of Southern retail since its founding in 1888" and referring to Complainant's "Crown & Ivy" private label, its "Project Hometown" community program, and its "Belk Rewards" loyalty program, and a further section presents supposed customer reviews. A "Blog & Latest Posts" section carries entries by-lined "By Belk" which display bedding products at prices such as $100.80 and $39.60, and the footer of each page states "Since 1888, Belk has been the destination for quality fashion, shoes, accessories, and home goods." followed by the notice "Thebelk.com participates in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com." and a menu of "About Us", "Contact Us", "FAQs", "Privacy Policy", and "Terms & Conditions" links. The "About Us" page speaks in Complainant's own voice, stating that "we've been more than just a department store for over 130 years" and recounting the founding of Complainant's business by William Henry Belk in Monroe, North Carolina. The "Contact Us" page is headed "Welcome to TheBelk.com!", gives an e-mail address of "thebelk@hotmail.com" and a "Customer Support Line" telephone number, and lists a mailing address of "Belk Customer Service 2801 West Tyvola Road, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28217", which is Complainant's own address as stated in the Complaint. The "Privacy Policy" page opens with the sentence "Belk, Inc. (thebelk.com) values and respects your privacy" and the "Terms & Conditions" page states that "The 'Belk' name and related trademarks, including variations like 'Belk Dresses,' 'Belk Shoes,' 'Belk Clothing,' 'Belk Jewelry,' 'Belks Shoes,' and 'Belk Purses,' are protected by intellectual property laws. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited." The Panel also notes that a sidebar on several of the pages carries links unrelated to Complainant's business, reading "Just Cavalli Uhr", "Just Cavalli Parfum", and "Just Cavalli Tasche". There does not appear to be any message stating that Respondent's site or the products shown on it do not originate from Complainant and the site offers no other indication that it has no relationship with Complainant. A further claim of official status appears in the record although not on the face of Respondent's pages: the capture stamp at the foot of each screenshot of the home page reports the document title as "Belk® Dresses, Shoes, Shoes, Jewelry, Purses, Clothing Official Website", which is the text of the page's HTML title element and would be seen by a visitor in the title bar or tab of their browser rather than in the body of the page. The Panel takes this into account on that footing. Finally, the fact that Complainant's mark appears on Respondent's website does not, itself, indicate that Respondent is commonly known thereby where such use appears intended to create consumer confusion. Madonna Ciccone, p/k/a Madonna v. Dan Parisi and "Madonna.com", D2000-0847 (WIPO Oct. 16, 2000) ("use which intentionally trades on the fame of another cannot constitute a 'bona fide' offering of goods or services. To conclude otherwise would mean that a Respondent could rely on intentional infringement to demonstrate a legitimate interest, an interpretation that is obviously contrary to the intent of the Policy.")

 

Based upon the submitted evidence, the Panel agrees with Complainant's contention that Respondent creates the false impression that its website is operated by Complainant and that it thereby deceives potential customers. Respondent has not participated in these proceedings to offer any explanation for its activities. Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is not being used for a bona fide offering of goods or services or in a legitimate noncommercial or fair manner under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant asserts that Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in its BELK mark. Some attribution of knowledge of a complainant's trademark is inherently prerequisite to a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See The Clash Of Trademarks And Domain Names On The Internet, at 11.02-D.1 (Gerald M. Levine, Legal Corner Press, June 1, 2026) ("Targeting presupposes that the mark is of such a quality that a respondent's denial of knowledge of it would be implausible.") Actual knowledge can provide a solid foundation upon which to build an argument of bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) and this can be demonstrated based on the reputation of the mark as well as the use to which a disputed domain name is put. See WordPress Foundation v. mich delorme / mich d dots tlds, FA 1584295 (Forum Nov. 25, 2014) ("Because Respondent here relies on the WORDPRESS mark in the disputed domain name and also makes use of Complainant's services at the resolving page, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark, and that such knowledge evidences Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith.") Also UDRP Perspectives on Recent Jurisprudence, § 3.4 (updated Jan. 15, 2025), available at https://udrpperspectives.org ("For bad faith to be present, the Respondent must have actual knowledge of the existence of the Complainant, the trademark owner.")

 

Complainant asserts that its mark is unique and well known in connection with retail department store services. Its submission of trademark registrations, while establishing trademark rights, does not establish the mark's reputation, but Complainant also submits screenshots of its own <belk.com> website, two announcements from its newsroom, and a directory of its retail stores listing locations throughout sixteen states, and these lend some support to its claim. In any event, Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is clear from its own conduct, as the website resolving from the <thebelk.com> domain name reproduces Complainant's mark, its product photographs and descriptions, and an account of Complainant's own corporate history, and it holds out Complainant's street address as Respondent's own. Registered long after Complainant first used and registered its mark, the disputed domain name cannot plausibly be explained as a coincidence. Based on the submitted evidence, the Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark at the time that it registered the disputed domain name and that it did so in bad faith.

 

Next, Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the <thebelk.com> domain name in bad faith because Respondent passes itself off as Complainant, confusing and deceiving consumers into thinking that they are dealing with a website that originates with Complainant, and thereby disrupts Complainant's business while seeking commercial gain. Such conduct is indicative of bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Tesla Inc. v. Ultimate / Jonathan Littlewood, FA 2052426 (Forum Aug. 2, 2023) (finding bad faith where "Respondent has attempted to commercially gain or otherwise benefit by fraudulently impersonating Complainant to entice shoppers to purchase on Respondent's website."); see also Indian Industries, Inc. d/b/a Escalade Sports v. jianping liang, FA 2074614 (Forum Jan. 5, 2024) (hosting a website at a domain name that impersonates complainant's business constitutes bad faith registration and use). The Panel references the screenshots of the site resolving from the disputed domain name which are described in the previous section. These show Respondent's use of Complainant's mark, accompanied in places by the registered trademark symbol "(R)", its product photographs and descriptions, and a recitation of its corporate history and community programs, all presented as Respondent's own. Respondent's site does not itself appear to complete any sale; rather, the notice in its footer discloses that it earns advertising fees by advertising and linking to a third-party retail platform. The means of commercial gain is therefore the traffic that the site draws, and that traffic is drawn by the confusion which Respondent has manufactured. Based on a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not), the Panel agrees with Complainant's assertion that Respondent is targeting the BELK mark and is seeking to impersonate Complainant for its own commercial benefit while diverting shoppers who are looking for Complainant. As such, the Panel finds firm ground upon which to conclude that Respondent both registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) and thus under ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

Complainant further asserts that Respondent was, at the very least, on constructive notice of its rights by virtue of its U.S. trademark registrations. The Panel does not rely on the doctrine of constructive notice, which is particularly inapt where, as here, Respondent does not reside in a jurisdiction that applies it. The finding of actual knowledge set out above makes the question academic in any event.

 

Finally, Complainant asserts that Respondent hid its identity by providing blatantly false contact information to the Registrar and that Respondent's use of a privacy service supports a finding of bad faith. However, the public WHOIS record submitted by Complainant displays no street address at all, listing only the state "hubeisheng" and the country "CN" along with a web form in place of an e-mail address, and the Registrar's verification response in this case disclosed the name and address of the underlying registrant rather than those of a proxy service. In these circumstances the Panel does not treat the redaction of the public record as evidence of bad faith, and it notes that the default use of a privacy or proxy service is a common practice amongst registrars. Thus, the Panel's finding of bad faith does not rest upon either of these assertions.

 

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

 

 

 

Steven M. Levy, Panelist

Dated: September 23, 2026