DECISION

 

Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. v. Roman Smith / Leo Wen / tong guan / shu bingtai / Nikck Walker

Claim Number: FA2608002240241

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Michaels Stores Procurement Company, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Chad Ray of MUNSCH HARDT KOPF & HARR, P.C., Texas, USA. Respondent is Roman Smith / Leo Wen / tong guan / shu bingtai / Nikck Walker ("Respondent"), Multiple Locations.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES 

The domain names at issue are <big-twist.com>, <thebigtwistyarn.com>, <bigtwistco.com>, <bigtwistshop.com> and <bigtwistyarnstore.com> (collectively "Domain Names"), registered with Dynadot Inc and 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.

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 and 27th, 2026, Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <big-twist.com>, <thebigtwistyarn.com>, <bigtwistco.com>, <bigtwistshop.com> and <bigtwistyarnstore.com> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc and Spaceship, Inc. registration agreements 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 September 8, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of September 28, 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@big-twist.com, postmaster@thebigtwistyarn.com, postmaster@bigtwistco.com, postmaster@bigtwistshop.com, and postmaster@bigtwistyarnstore.com. Also on September 8, 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 29, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE RESPONDENTS

In the instant proceedings, Complainant has implicitly alleged that the named entities which control the Domain Names at issue are effectively controlled by the same person and/or entity, which is operating under several aliases. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that a "complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder."  

 

The Panel considers it likely, on the balance of probabilities, that all of the registrants for <big-twist.com>, <thebigtwistyarn.com>, <bigtwistco.com>, <bigtwistshop.com> and <bigtwistyarnstore.com> are related because are related because: 1) they are all similar variants of Complainant's BIG TWIST mark, 2) each of the Domain Names are used for similar websites ("Respondent's Websites") that target the Complainant using the Amazon-affiliate monetization model, 3) the contact details on each of the Respondent's Websites or Whois details contains fake and incorrect contact information, 4) the domain names <big-twist.com> and <thebigtwistyarn.com> each resolve to the same website, and the same can be said for <bigtwistco.com> and <bigtwistshop.com>, and 5) The Respondent's Websites have numerous similarities in site structure, taglines, and product descriptions, indicating that they were created using the same template or information.

 

This evidence, in the Panel's opinion, strongly suggests that the Domain Names are owned/controlled by a single Respondent; were the named Respondents unrelated, it would be unlikely that 5 unconnected entities would register 5 similar domain names and resolve them to 3 similar websites operating on the same business model. In light of these contentions, which none of the identified Respondents deny, the Panel concludes that, on the balance of probabilities, the Domain Names are commonly owned/controlled by a single Respondent who is using multiple aliases. Hereafter the single Respondent will be referred to as "Respondent" for this Decision.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant is the owner of the intellectual property in a mark consisting of the words "BIG TWIST" and a device element consisting of a stylized piece of yarn ("BIG TWIST mark") and uses this mark for fabric and related products. Complainant has rights in the BIG TWIST mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") (e.g., Reg. No. 7,032,075 registered April 18, 2023). Each of <big-twist.com>, <thebigtwistyarn.com>, <bigtwistco.com>, <bigtwistshop.com> and <bigtwistyarnstore.com>, are confusingly similar to Complainant's BIG TWIST mark because each domain name incorporates the word elements of the BIG TWIST mark and adds the ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") and a generic term or abbreviation.

 

Respondent has no legitimate interests in the Domain Names. Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names and Complainant has not authorized or licensed Respondent any rights in the BIG TWIST mark. Additionally, Respondent does not use the Domain Names for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the Domain Names resolve the Respondent's Websites that display Complainant's mark, pass off as the Complainant, and purport to offer unauthorized versions of Complainant's fabric products through the Amazon Affiliate program or other third party referral programs. Visitors to the Respondent's Websites who clicked various links below product descriptions on the Respondent's Websites are redirected to third-party retailers' websites where they could purchase products for which Respondent would receive an affiliate fee.

 

Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith. Respondent registered the Domain Names in order to disrupt Complainant's business and divert customers for commercial gain. Respondent registered the Domain Names with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the BIG TWIST mark given the content of the Respondent's Websites, which copy Complainant's mark and include images of Complainant's products.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainant holds trademark rights for the BIG TWIST mark.  Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the BIG TWIST mark.  Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names in bad faith.

 

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 rights in the BIG TWIST mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 7,032,075 registered April 18, 2023). Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. 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).").

 

The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the BIG TWIST mark as they each incorporate the portion of the BIG TWIST mark reproducible in a domain name (the yarn device not being reproducible) and add a hyphen, generic term or abbreviation (such as "yarn" or "co" ) and a gTLD. Addition of generic or descriptive terms and a TLD to a trade mark is generally insufficient to negate confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).  See Dell Inc. v. pushpender chauhan, FA 1784548 (Forum June 11, 2018) ("Respondent merely adds the term 'supports' and a '.org' gTLD to the DELL mark. Thus, the Panel finds Respondent's disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's DELL mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)."); see also 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."); see also Trip Network Inc. v. Alviera, FA 914943 (Forum Mar. 27, 2007) (finding top-level domains are irrelevant for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).

 

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

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm't Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) ("Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names."). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.

 

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the BIG TWIST mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA 1613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists "Dale Anderson" as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA 1621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where "Privacy Service" was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name).  The WHOIS information of record lists "Roman Smith / Leo Wen / tong guan / shu bingtai / Nikck Walker" as the registrants of record. Coupled with Complainant's unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Each of the Domain Names resolves or has resolved to the Respondent's Websites. Each of the Respondent's Websites, through the reproduction of the BIG TWIST mark, images of Complainant's products and references to the Complainant including fake company and social media websites, falsely passes itself off as being associated with or authorized by Complainant for the purpose of encouraging visitors to click on hyperlinks (for which the Respondent was likely to receive revenue through the Amazon Affiliate program or similar programs ) that redirected to a webpage operated by third party retailers that allowed users to purchase Complainant's products and competing products.¹  This is not a bona fide offering or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.  See MTD Products Inc v. Abdullah Mahmud Ashik / SARDAH.COM, FA 1832254 (Forum Apr. 4, 2019) (finding lack of rights or interests in similar circumstances; Walmart Apollo, LLC v. zhong yu, FA 2170442 (Forum Sept. 4, 2025) (same); Healthy Pet LP v. Vadym Bayev, FA 2141490 (Forum Mar. 20, 2025) (same) and Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. David Sutton, FA 1795497 (Forum July 30, 2018) (finding lack of rights or legitimate interests where domain name was used to promote competing products, presumably generating referral fees for respondent).   

 

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

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time the Respondent acquired each of the Domain Names (between November 2025 and March 2026), Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's BIG TWIST mark since the Respondent's Websites pass themselves off as official websites of the Complainant for the purpose of redirecting visitors to third party websites in exchange for an affiliate fee. Furthermore, there is no obvious explanation, nor has one been provided, for an entity to register 5 domain names that contain minor variants of the BIG TWIST mark and use each of them for websites offering pay-per-click links to websites selling the Complainant's goods and goods that compete with Complainant other than to take advantage of Complainant's reputation in the BIG TWIST mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant's BIG TWIST mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites that operate as a mechanism to encourage visitors to click on a series of links for which Respondent would be expected to receive revenue under an affiliate program.  Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website that passes off as the Complainant and contains advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See 3M Company v. Nguyen Hoang Son / Bussiness and Marketing, FA 1575815 (Forum Sept. 18, 2014) (finding that the respondent's use of the disputed domain name to host sponsored advertisements for Amazon, through which the respondent presumably profited, indicated that the respondent had used the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)); see also Bang & Olufsen a/s v. Chris Albano / BlueHost.com- INC, D2010-0406 (WIPO May 5, 2010)  (bad faith found where the disputed domain was used "as part of a scheme to generate click through revenue by Internet users who visit the site, believing it to be associated with the Complainant, then clicking through to eBay listings of the Complainant's products for sale").

 

The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied 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 <big-twist.com>, <thebigtwistyarn.com>, <bigtwistco.com>, <bigtwistshop.com> and <bigtwistyarnstore.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist

Dated: September 29, 2026