DECISION
Guinness World Records Limited v. Nelson Bridgewater / John Johnson
Claim Number: FA2608002240358
PARTIES
Complainant is Guinness World Records Limited ("Complainant"), represented by Robert Leighton of Goldberg Kohn Ltd., Illinois, USA. Respondent is Nelson Bridgewater / John Johnson ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop> and <guinnessworldrecordsboutique.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.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on August 18, 2026; Forum received payment on August 18, 2026.
On August 19, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop> and <guinnessworldrecordsboutique.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 27, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a 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@guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop and postmaster@guinnessworldrecordsboutique.shop. Also on August 27, 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 17, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Charles A. Kuechenmeister 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 a Response or any other submittal from Respondent.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: : Multiple Respondents and Domain Names
The Complaint names two persons as Respondents and relates to two domain names. Paragraph 3(c) of 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." Complainant alleges that both domain names are operated by the same person or entity using different aliases and requests consolidation. The WHOIS information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists Nelson Bridgewater as the registrant of the <guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop> domain name and John Johnson as the registrant of the <guinnessworldrecordsboutique.shop> domain name. Notwithstanding the different registrant names, both domain names were registered within two days of each other with the same registrar, using the same privacy service (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Exhibit 2), both domains exhibit the same naming convention, i.e., Complainant's mark coupled with a generic or descriptive term and a generic top-level-domain (gTLD), and both domain names resolve to websites that are almost identical in layout, content and general appearance, purporting to offer clothing and general merchandise branded as Complainant's, with similar deep discounts (screenshots submitted as Complaint Exhibits 5 and 6). These factors, and a number of others noted by Complainant, indicate common ownership and control. The Panel finds that both domain names are registered to the same person or entity or are under common control and will proceed as to both of them. References in this Decision to Respondent, even though in the singular, refer to the registrant of both domain names.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant publishes and distributes its world-famous Guinness World Records book. It has rights in the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark based upon its registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Respondent's domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark. They fully incorporate the mark, merely adding a generic or descriptive term and a generic top-level domain (gTLD).
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. It is not using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead is using them to impersonate and pass off as Complainant, advertising goods branded as Complainant's, Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names.
Respondent registered and is using the domain names in bad faith. It is using them to attract for commercial gain Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its websites, it is passing off as Complainant, and it registered the domain names with constructive or actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted 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 a complainant to prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order cancelling or transferring a domain name:
(1) the domain name registered by the respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and
(2) the 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, pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules the Panel will decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations 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. Nevertheless, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory allegations unsupported by competent evidence.
The Panel finds as follows with respect to the matters at issue in this proceeding:
Identical and/or Confusingly Similar
The GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark was registered to Complainant with the USPTO (Reg. No 2,824,273) on March 24, 2004 (USPTO registration certificate included in Complaint Exhibit 3). Complainant's registration of its GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark with the USPTO establishes its rights in that mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent's <guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop> and <guinnessworldrecordsboutique.shop> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark. They fully incorporate the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark, merely omitting the spaces and adding a generic or descriptive term and a gTLD. Complainant's mark is clearly recognizable within the domain names. Omitting spaces and adding generic terms and a gTLD do not distinguish the domain names from Complainant's mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel finds that the domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark, in which Complainant has substantial and demonstrated rights.
Rights or Legitimate Interests
Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name involves the difficult task of "proving a negative," requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. Accordingly, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with competent, relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. At all times, the burden of proof remains on the complainant. Guggenheim Capital, LLC v. John Hawkins, Louvre Abu Dhabi Museum Case No. DAI2026-0035
Policy ¶ 4(c) lists the following three nonexclusive circumstances, any one of which if proven can demonstrate a respondent's rights or legitimate interests in a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii):
(i) The respondent has used or has made demonstrable preparations to use the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if the respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names because (i) it is not using them in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use but instead uses them to impersonate and pass off as Complainant, advertising goods branded as Complainant's, (ii) Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its mark, and (iii) Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names. These allegations are addressed as follows:
Complainant states that it has not authorized or licensed Respondent to use its mark. Complainant has specific competence to make this statement, it is unchallenged by any evidence before the Panel and is taken as true. While evidence that a respondent is not authorized to use a complainant's mark is not dispositive, it is relevant to the circumstances listed in Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii) and supports a finding that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
The information furnished to Forum by the registrar lists the Respondent as the registrant of the domain names. These names bear no resemblance to the domain names. Evidence could, of course, in a given case demonstrate that the respondent is commonly known by a domain name different from the name in which it registered the domain name, e.g., the case of a domain name incorporating the brand name of a specific product offered by and associated with the respondent. In the absence of any such evidence, however, UDRP panels have consistently held that WHOIS evidence of a registrant name which does not correspond with the domain name is sufficient to prove that the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name. Respondent has not been commonly known by the domain names.
Complainant has made its prima facie case. On the evidence discussed above, and in the absence of any evidence from Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names.
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) requires Complainant to prove that the domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth a nonexclusive list of four circumstances, any one of which if proven would be evidence of bad faith use and registration of a domain name. They are as follows:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant which is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the respondent's 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 the respondent's web site or location or of a product of service on the respondent 's web site or location.
The concept of bad faith as illustrated in the above four subparagraphs necessarily involves a subjective intent on the part of a respondent knowingly to trade upon the goodwill of the complainant. The respondent must intentionally have targeted the complainant's mark. Such subjective intent would in turn require that the respondent actually knew of the complainant or its rights in the relevant mark when it registered the domain name. Constructive notice does not suffice.
In attempting to discern actual knowledge and a subjective bad faith intent, panels have looked at many different types of evidence, including but not limited to use of a domain name in direct competition with a trademark owner, impersonation, the parties operating in the same market segment, the parties being physically located in the same general geographic area, a pattern of bad faith conduct, actual prior association between or among the parties, the distinctive nature of the trademark, and the extent to which the trademark has been publicized and is known as a source indicator for the complainant. Unsupported allegations about a respondent's subjective intent are not evidence in this regard.
The evidence in this case conclusively demonstrates that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names in July of 2026 (WHOIS printouts included in Complaint Exhibit 2 show registration dates). Complainant had by then been using the GUINNESS WORLD RECORDS mark at least since the October 2000 first use date shown on the USPTO registration certificate for its mark included in Complaint Exhibit 3. More tellingly, Respondent had to have had actual knowledge of Complainant and its mark in order to impersonate it with its domain names and the websites resolving from them. Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant when it registered the domain names and selected them with the intent to target this Complainant. It registered the domain names in bad faith.
The evidence of Respondent's conduct discussed above in the rights or legitimate interests analysis supports a finding of bad faith registration and use based upon the grounds articulated in the Policy and upon additional grounds adopted by UDRP panels over the years. First, by passing off as Complainant and offering to sell products advertised as those of Complainant, Respondent is using the confusingly similar domain names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of those websites. Commercial gain is intended or results from the sale of goods from the websites. Respondent's conduct fits squarely within the circumstances described in Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and is manifest evidence of bad faith registration and use. Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA 1612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) ("The Panel agrees that Respondent's use of the website to display products similar to Complainant's, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).").
Next, as discussed above, Respondent is using the domain names to pass off as Complainant. This does not fit precisely within any of the scenarios listed in Policy ¶ 4(b) but that paragraph recognizes that mischief can manifest in many different forms and takes an open-ended approach to bad faith, listing some examples without attempting to enumerate all its varieties. The non-exclusive nature of Policy ¶ 4(b) allows for consideration of additional factors in an analysis for bad faith, and passing off as a complainant, in and of itself, is evidence of bad faith. Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith where "Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant's own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.").
For the reasons first set forth above, the Panel finds that Respondent registered or is using the domain names in bad faith within the meaning of Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
DECISION
Complainant having established all three elements required under the Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <guinnessworldrecordsgear.shop> and <guinnessworldrecordsboutique.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Charles A. Kuechenmeister, Panelist
September 18, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page